Jakaria vs State of Haryana

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 01.12.2012 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal dismissing appeal filed by petitioner-accused against judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2011 and order of sentence dated 24.02.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hathin in FIR no. 44 dated 19.01.2003, under Sections 3 /12 of the Passports Act, 1967 and Sections 417 /419 IPC, police station Hathin, vide which petitioner-accused was convicted and sentenced as under:-

Under Section 199 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-.

Under Section 417 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Under Section 12 of the To undergo rigorous imprisonment for Passports Act, 1967 one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned courts below.

Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that, on the basis of information, Sub Inspector Rajbir Singh visited house of petitioner-accused situated in village Mankaki on 19.01.2003. Petitioner-accused produced five passports out of which Passport No. A-7674734 was in the name of Zakaria son of Sube Khan, which was valid for the period from 28.06.1999 to 27.06.2009. The second passport bearing No. B-5055675 was in the name of Zakaria son of Sube Khan, which was valid from 08.02.2001 to 07.02.2011. Both these passports were issued by the Delhi Passport Authority. The remaining three passports were in the name of the father of petitioner-accused, Sube Khan son of Kallu Khan, which were valid from 17.10.1996 to 16.10.2006, 21.04.1998 to 20.04.2008 and 10.06.1999 to 09.06.2009. The same were also issued by the Delhi Passport Authority. Photographs of petitioner-accused were affixed on the two passports and photographs of father of petitioner-accused were affixed on the remaining three passports standing in his name. The passports were got issued on the basis of Ration Card, which was also tampered with. Even different dates of birth were incorporated in the passports.

After completion of investigation, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against petitioner-accused. He faced trial. He was convicted and sentenced by learned trial court as aforementioned. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal.

It was contended on behalf of petitioner-accused that he did not want to press the present revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, is concerned and hence, notice of motion was issued qua quantum of sentence only. I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below. The same are based on evidence. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by learned courts below. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgments passed by both the courts below convicting petitioner-accused.

However, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he has been facing agony of trial since the year 2003. It is further contended that the alleged two passports were not ever misused by the petitioner-accused. It is further contended that one of the passports was got issued by his father when he was minor and the second passport was got issued by him after attaining the age of majority. It is further contended that the alleged forgery, if any, might have been committed by his father without his knowledge. It is further submitted that he is not a previous convict and he is not involved in any other case. It is also submitted that he is having small children to look after.

Hence, it is contended that he deserves leniency in the quantum of sentence.

Taking into consideration all the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner-accused deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence.

Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. While affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that period of imprisonment is reduced from three years to one year for offence u/s 199 IPC while maintaining the other sentences. Disposed of accordingly.