High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/1519/2018disposed of

Manjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2026-04-29Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj14 pages

!" #$%$!&'()(*(

"#$

% $&

(

' +,

( -. -( / !

)

** ++ , (- ./ , /(

+* !*0 /1*

/, (- ./ ,

01!2304$5 !#!&" 1 &#

* '

! /-

/4'/1, 3, 56/+

. -( /6( 1 * ' !

/1 - !

*/!

+ ' 2 ( /4/ !

* 65(47

- .

(

! . (/ ( '/!!( +8

* * 2 5( .

/1 /4 !

/ , /!/,

./! +/ . */11/ 9:

(/ ( ;:, / !

% +/ ;

(/ ( 9, 5(

:, :9, :9, : /( &

* ( / /1 (, 9,

4 !

( /

. /

/!/, !

/!/, <* +8

* - !

*/( + .

- .

( /( ! .( /!

5( )

..5!(

22. 5(

8/ !

'/8 /

(2/51

'/87

- .

!*/11 * 5( 4

* :9

8/ !

'/8 /

(2/51

'/87

- .

!*/11 * 5( 4

* :9

8/ !

'/8 /

(2/51

'/87

- .

!*/11 * 5( 4

* 11

* ! .!

( (

.5 18

A further challenge is also made to the judgment dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, in criminal appeal bearing No.106 dated 04.10.2011, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that a letter dated 02.09.2002 was addressed to the SSP, Mansa, by the District Education Officer (Primary), Mansa, to register a criminal case against Parkash Singh son of Gurdial Singh, resident of village Meerpur Kalan. It was submitted in

;

the said letter that Parkash Singh had been appointed as a JBT Teacher as per the order dated 26.12.2001 of their office. The verification of the certificates of B.A/B.Ed. was got done from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi vide letter dated 22.05.2002. As per the letter dated 31.05.2002 of the University, the certificates of B.A/B.Ed, of Parkash Singh, was found to be forged and fabricated. The said employee was terminated vide their office letter dated 08.08.2002. Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, was requested to get the criminal case registered against the accused vide their office letter dated 07.06.2002. Deputy Commissioner, Mansa had written vide his office letter dated 11.08.2002 that, as per the opinion of the District Attorney, a case under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of the IPC be got registered against the accused persons.

On receipt of the above-said letter in the office of SSP, Mansa, the opinion of DDA (Legal) was obtained by SSP, Mansa, and on the opinion of DDA (Legal), the case was registered against the accused Parkash Singh vide FIR No. 223 of 06.12.2002. Thereafter, the investigation of this case was conducted by SI Sher Singh. During the investigation, the certificates sent by Sh.B.K.Sinha, Registrar and other records sent by the District Education Officer were verified. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused Parkash Singh was arrested in this case. During interrogation, Parkash Singh admitted that he had received the certificates of B.A/B.Ed. from Manjit Singh son of Nirbhey Singh, resident of H.No.1201, Khalsa Mohalla, Patiala. Thereafter, the petitioner Manjit Singh was arrested in this case.

Kumar son of Munna Lal, resident of Rajput Nagar, Shivaji Colony, Jhansi (U.P). Thereafter, efforts were made to arrest the accused Mukesh Kumar, but he could not be arrested and was declared a proclaimed offender by the Court. Some part of the investigation was conducted by ASI Gurtej Singh. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court against the accused persons.

On the appearance of the accused in the Court, copies of the challan were supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. Finding a prima-facie case, charges under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC were framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Satpal, Clerk, DEO (Secondary) Office, Mansa as PW-1; Ram Badai Yadav, Clerk, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi as PW-2; Palwinder Singh retired DEO as PW-3; SI Sher Singh (Retired) as PW-4; Amritpal as PW-5; Hardip Singh as PW-6; ASI Gurtej Singh (Retired) as PW-7; Ashwani Kumar, Clerk, Punjab School Education Board as PW-8; Maya Shankar, Section Officer, F.D.S Bundelkhand as PW-9 and, thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order of the Court.

In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., all the incriminating evidence against the accused was put to them, which they denied and pleaded innocence. However, no evidence was led in defence. After considering the arguments advanced, the testimonies of witnesses, and the evidence placed on record, the Trial Court, vide judgment

dated 10.09.2011, convicted the accused and sentenced them vide order of even date.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeals before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. However, vide judgment dated 09.01.2018, while Parkash Singh's appeal was allowed, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the latter's conviction and sentence. Hence, the present revision petition.

After arguing the matter at some length, counsel for the petitioner does not press the present revision petition on merits and confines his challenge only to the quantum of punishment that has been so awarded. The following mitigating circumstances are pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner:

(

>5!

</!

(

7+ ,

/( /17 !

< 82 8/ !

*/- 1/'!( !

* !

* 65(47

(/ ( ,

</!

/4( 8/ !, /( /!

* 65(47

* /''11/

(/ ( ,

* '

/4(

8/ !, 7/

* +8,

* '

+ /4(

8/ !

(/8

(

!544!

* '

* /+ -

(

* /2 ,

* '

</!

- 1-(

* .

/1 /.

* '

* +2 .

/ 8

* !/ (

(

- * '

*/!

5( 4 / /.

5/1 ! .

8/ ,

/( (/8!

* 7/?

! .

* 8/ !

/</ (( +8

/1 , /!

/22 7( +8

/''11/ , /!

21.

(

( (/ (

;

( !5!'!

! .

, '/!!( +8

* !

* '(.8

' !

* */!

(

* '

*/!

- 1-( * 7!12

22.

!5.*

/ !

1/ / 5

* /2 ,

(vi) The petitioner has endured the ordeal of a prolonged criminal trial spanning over twenty-four years. He was in his early forties at the time of the incident and is now nearly 66 years of age.

(vii) The petitioner is the sole earning member of his family. His children are now at crucial stages of career. Directing the petitioner to undergo his remaining sentence would have devastating consequences for the family.

State counsel, on the other hand, contends that both the Courts have examined the evidence brought on record and concurrently recorded a finding of conviction against the petitioner. He submits that no illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner; hence, no

occasion would call for upsetting the findings recorded or the sentence awarded and affirmed by the Courts.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgments.

* @+1 5' 7

*/!

1/ ( ( < . /

'1!

* !

* 7/

! .

4 2 .

* !

4/ ( 7/8

+ 7/(

* 65(47

* @+1 5' 7

* 7/

* 1-/

* !/ ( 65(47

(5.( * +1 <)

! "#

#! $ $ ' &

' ()* + ),

' ()* + )"- + ,) + ,%.,%/

3 +

3 1

/.$4 !4+ 5 6(/22"*)+

)).7

9/$

//;< = ! + !&6(/22%*%+

)"/7

4 ( *

/) $ + : ! + ;

? 6()..%* ) +

,27

A# + + $

A B

C + 89+ '

+& + D6(/22/*,+

"#/7

1 111 /- 4 E ;

9+ ;

99+ F;

! F 9 8

9$ 9 9

9 9

9 0

4 3 E

6H 7

/2I==>H :

+ 9+ 98

1 (9 9*

(9 ' 9*

! '

18$

J 1

1 J E

A B

( /22#**9

).! F D:

;

/ ' ) H ' '

3 '

* /2 !/ ( '

'1!

- (

22.

>5!

* / 5 /!

< 51( + (/4 5!

!* .0

* '5+1 .

. *

+6.

'5 !*7

'5 !* +5

/1!

*/+

22( !

8 C* / /''11/

21.

/ !

-7

/( 2 7/

- +*/-

5 ,

* '

.!!

1/<

!* 51( .

* / (

!5.* / /''11/

!5 * !

4 /

(

* '

./ . /

* '

( .

/1 /(

* .

!>5

/4 2/.( +8

* /''11/ ,

* /.

5/1 ! .

/1 ! . /1 /(8 5( 4 +8

* /''11/ ,

* 2 7/

(.8 !* < +8

* /''11/

(514

22.,

* /''11/

( , /!

<11 /!

* 14/1 '

'1!

(5.( /+ -, / !522 .

.57!

/.!

!>5 18, the judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, as well as the judgment dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, in criminal appeal bearing No.106 dated 04.10.2011, are /22 7( <- ,

(

! . (/ (

( (, /(

* ! . /</ ((

(5.(

* '

( /1 /(8 5( 4 +8 * 7

* ' !

/..

( 179 77!: 5

81$76*( . -( /

; 1!1 G 8KGD 8KGD