High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/4807/2018disposed of

Ravi Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2023-05-03Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger11 pages

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

* +,*)- -

#####

- ).,/ $

&( )&$* +

% ,

- .

0)&

-1 2 3$(

$$ )&$0

0)&04'

- .

)( $$ )&$* +

- .

&( )&$*/

Briefly stated, an FIR came to be registered on the statement of

complainant, namely Arjan Singh s/o Pathana Singh, who stated that he was to get his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-05-N-6131, insured for the period from 12.09.2012 to 11.09.2013 and Baljinder Singh s/o Malkiat Singh introduced him with Ravi Kumar, Insurance Agent, who used to sit at Suvidha Centre, Ferozepur Cantt. Ravi Kumar obtained Rs.1,500/- from him for insuring his motorcycle, which he gave in the presence of Amrik Singh and Surjit Singh. Accused Ravi Kumar after receiving the amount of Rs.1,500/-, handed over the insurance policy of motorcycle, allegedly issued by insurance company namely, The New India Assurance Company Limited, for a period from 12.09.2012 to 11.09.2013.

That the fact of insurance policy being not genuine, being forged and fabricated and being not issued by the aforementioned Insurance Company; came to the knowledge of complainant from the counsel of the said Insurance Company, during the proceedings of a case, wherein motorcycle in question was involved in an accident. Complainant along with Amrik Singh and Surjit Singh met the accused Ravi Kumar, number of times but to no effect and rather the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences. On the basis of the said application, enquiry was conducted by Head Constable Gurmail Singh and on the basis of enquiry report submitted by him, the instant FIR was registered.

Investigation in the case was pressed into service and on completion thereof, challan was presented against the accused for offences under Sections 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. 4.

Upon finding a prima facie case, the trial Court framed charges against accused under Section 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, to

which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5.

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-

! "# $ %

& & "# $ %

( ) ) * +, $-, . /0 # $ (, 12 $( 6.

After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the material incriminatory evidence/material was put to him, which he denied in toto and pleaded false implication. In defence, no evidence was produced. (

1. Whether the accused cheated the complainant by inducing him to deliver a sum of Rs.1,500/- on the pretext of doing insurance of his motorcycle bearing No.PB-05-N-6131 and thereafter, delivered him a forged Insurance Policy and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC?

2. Whether the accused Ravi Kumar forged the Insurance Policy pertaining to motorcycle bearing No.PB-05-N-6131 and thereby committed the offence of forgery under Section 465 IPC?

3. Whether prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of

reasonable doubt?

After considering the material/evidence available on record, the learned trial Court returned the following findings :- "

- x - x -

18. Now, in the present case, accused Ravi Kumar has been charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 420,465 of IPC. As far as the offence under section 420 IPC is concerned, it has been alleged by the prosecution that the accused induced the complainant to deliver him a sum of Rs. 1500/- on the pretext of insuring the motorcycle of the complainant Arjan Singh bearing registration No PB-05-N-6131 but thereafter, the accused cheated the complainant and caused wrongful loss to the complainant by delivering him a forged and fabricated Insurance Policy and in order to prove the said cheating being committed by the accused with the complainant, the prosecution has examined the complainant Arjan Singh who in his testimony as PW2 has specifically deposed about the cheating being committed with him by the accused Ravi Kumar.

He has specifically deposed that the accused took an amount of Rs. 1500/- from him for insuring his motorcycle bearing registration No.

# $ ( +# # 67 6 67 6! " ( # ( # ( /0 # $ ( #

# # # -0# $ ( # # +# $ 0 ( '

0 #

# 0 89

, 12 "

( # # ( 89: # ## # 0 # # # 0 # # 4 )66;

( / * 6) / 3! . 0

# ( 9

# 0 # #

# ( # # # 9 ( # ( # ( ( 0 # ( # ( 7 . # ( 0 0 ## ( # ( 0 89 ,

# # # # # ( /0 # $ ( # ( 3 * +, $-, /0 # $ ( +#, 12 0 # (

# # # ( ## ( # # ( - * / * 6) /

3! " ## 2# #, ( / !36<66! 66667 ( / * 6) / 3! ( 0 89: # ( ( " # # # 893;, 0 (

9 # /0 # $ ( ( / * 6)

/ 3! . # 3 ## #

# ( = > ( = =( 0 893;* # 0 # # ( = > ( # # / * 6) / 3! # , ( 3 # # 89 3; # 893;* ( # # # ( #( # ( /0 # $ ( ( 0 89: 0 0 ##

( # ( # # # ( /0 # $ ( # # # # 0 0 ## ( # 4 )66;

# ( ( - x - x -

, , ) "$ % '

( # 3 * +, $-, /0 # $ ( +# # # ( # , '

( # # # # # # , # #

& $, ( # # (# #0 #

- x - x -

! # &3) $ #, # ( # 4 5 # ( ( 0 89: # ( # ( # &3) $

# ( #

( '

# # ( # 4 5 / #

( 0 #

( ( 0 89: 0 # # # # #

9 ( # ## # ( 0 # ( # ( ( 8 '

( ) "$ % 9 ( # ## '

0 ( 0 # # 0 0 # # ( 0 0 # . # # # 4 5 (

& , ( ( 0 89: 0 0 ## ( # - 4 )66;

, # ( /0

# $ ( # # # # # # ( # #

( # 0 # # # ( 0 0 # / # #

( # # #

( ## ( # 0 # # ( # 0 #

# &3) $ #

) ", 0 # # #, # ##

# # # &3) $ # , # 4 5 '

# # &3) $ "0, # # # & 6 # $# (# #0 ( #

( # # # # , # 4 5 ( # ( # & 6 # $# # # # + - #( # # '

Thus, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.2018, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. 10.

The appeal filed by the present petitioner came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide its judgment dated 27.11.2018 and the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.2018 was upheld.

11.

Hence, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Court.

12.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not propose to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction on merits, however, he prayed for modification of the order of sentence for the period already undergone by the petitioner.

13.

In this regard, it has been submitted that the FIR for the alleged

0 incident was lodged in the year 2014 and the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial/appeal/revision for all these years. It is further submitted that the petitioner was granted the suspension of sentence by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2019 and he has never misused the said concession.It is contended that the petitioner has already undergone sentence of nine months and fourteen days out of the total awarded sentence of one year, in the instant case and he is not a previous convict. 14.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the judgments of both the Courts below are well reasoned and have been passed after taking into consideration the entire evidence and the material on record. However, the fact with respect to the custody of the petitioner has not been disputed by the learned State counsel. 15.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record, as well as judgment of the trial Court and lower Appellate Court.

16.

Perusal of the judgments passed by the learned Courts below show that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty for commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellate Court has also rightly dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner. There is no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by both the Courts below, which may warrant interference of this Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction and has rather restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner is

upheld.

17.

Vide separate order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistate, Ferozepur, the petitioner has been sentenced as under: - $$"(%"12'

345&'#(3"(!

+ /

+ ) &&&76

$0 &* )&$8 + 0)&

/ 9

+ +

5 %

;

+!<

=% : ! "# "$%% & '( )

* # +,%- .%& '/ )

,)(*- ,%-%%&'12 /

%, -++: 2 * "# "$%

-1; / )&$0>

+ 7 7

+ >

&3 &'

)&)3> +

+ %

+ +

+/ 5

&( )&$* +

% % ,

- .

? +

% @

+ /

+ + !/

+ ) &&&76 /

))

?@ + /

)) .

- / $ A

97 72 ) A