Jaswinder Singh vs State of Punjab

S.C. Datta, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The petitioner Shri Jaswinder Singh alongwith another Shri Roop Lal Bhagat faced trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh on charges under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 420, IPC read with section 34, IPC.

The allegations against the petitioner and the said Roop Lal Bhagat were that they had committed forgery and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 632.85p of the Punjab School Education Board. According to the prosecution, some money was due to Shri R.P. Shori from the Punjab School Education Board. Smt. Gurdeep Kaur was an Assistant of the Board who prepared a cheque for Rs. 632.85p in the name of Shri R.P. Shori. The said cheque was handed over to the accused Roop Lal Bhagat who was the Office Superintendent of the Board for being handed over to the person concerned. The further case of the prosecution is that Roop Lal Bhagat passed on the cheque to the accused Jaswinder Singh who was working as a Clerk at the relevant time in the said Board. The said Jaswinder Singh deposited the cheque in his account on 13.2.1976 and obtained payment by forging the cheque which was wrongly drawn in the name of Shri R.P. Sharma. The mistake was detected and a complaint followed. The trial Court found both the accused persons guilty of charges framed against them and convicted them thereunder and sentenced them for various terms on each count.

Being aggrieved, both the accused persons preferred separate appeals which were heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who by judgment and order dated 4.8.1986 found Roop Lal Bhagat not guilty of the charges and acquitted him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found the present petitioner Jaswinder Singh not guilty of the charges under Section 409/34, IPC and acquitted him of the said charge. He, however, found that the present petitioner is guilty of the charges under Sections 467/471, IPC and maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

As against the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has moved this Court in revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted the petitioner where he found the other person namely Roop Lal Bhagat not guilty of the charges under Sections 467/471, IPC. He submits further that neither Shri R.P. Sharma nor Shri R.P. Shori has been examined in this case to prove the allegation of forgery against the present petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had made endorsement on the back of the cheque and got payment through the bank so as to constitute the offence of forgery. He submits that the handwriting expert has not been examined by the prosecution so as to bring home the charges against the petitioner. In this connection it would be pertinent to notice several facts which are not disputed. Roop Lal Bhagat was the Superintendent of the office of Punjab School Education Board and a cheque for the sum of Rs. 632.85 was drawn in the name of one R.P. Sharma, inadvertently, though the said cheque ought to have been drawn in the name of Shri R.P. Shori. According to the prosecution, the said cheque was encashed by the petitioner by forging the signature of the name R.P. Sharma and the endorsement thereon. The petitioner stated during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had received the cheque from the coaccused Roop Lal Bhagat on the latter''s request and got it through his bank as the said R.P. Sharma was in dire need of money. We, therefore, get from the statement of the petitioner that he had received the cheque, encashed it through his bank. It is noticed that he is a mere Clerk in the office of Punjab School Education Board and he is in no way connected with the disbursement of the said cheque to Shri R.P. Sharma or to anyone else. Shri R.P. Sharma is a fictitious person inasmuch as the cheque was to be drawn in the name of Shri R.P. Shori and not in the name of Shri R.P. Sharma. P.W.1 Gurdeep Kaur, an Assistant of the Board had clearly admitted the mistake on her part in writing out the cheque in the name of R.P. Sharma instead of in the name of R.P. Shori. The plea of the petitioner is to the effect that he had encashed the cheque at the request of Roop Lal Bhagat so as to help R.P. Sharma who was allegedly in dire need of money. The plea raised by the petitioner appears to be totally false on the ground that had there been such a request, the petitioner would have obtained the receipt from the said R.P. Sharma or from Roop Lal Bhagat who had requested him to encash the cheque and to make payment to Shri R.P. Sharma.

The prosecution has got the copy of the bank account of the petitioner from which it is evident that the said account was opened with the Punjab National Bank, Kharar on 5.2.1976 for Rs. 5/ only. The cheque is dated 30.1.1976 while the endorsement thereon is dated 2.2.76. On 13.2.76 the cheque was deposited and Rs. 435/ was withdrawn on 18.2.1976. The account was ultimately closed on 12.3.76. There is no other transaction in the said account during the period it remained in operation. This is evident of the fact that the petitioner opened the bank account only for a short period solely for the purpose of encashing this cheque. There cannot be any other explanation for the opening of this account and closing within a short period of its opening. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, it seems, has rightly concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the charges under Sections 467/471 IPC. There is no material to take a contrary view. Therefore, no interference with the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge seems necessary.

Learned lawyer for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing the agony of trial for the last nineteen years. He had undergone imprisonment for fifteen days in all. He had refunded the amount to the Board. He submits further that the petitioner has lost his service and acquired a family meanwhile. Accordingly, he submits that he should be released under the Probation of Offenders Act instead of sending him to prison to serve out the remaining period of imprisonment. I have, therefore, given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned lawyer for the petitioner. It cannot be overlooked that the offence committed by the petitioner is very serious. He forged the cheque and encashed it. Luckily the mistake in drawing the cheque in the name of R.P. Sharma instead of R.P. Shori was detected quickly, so also the fact of encashment of cheque by the petitioner. The petitioner had no occasion to deal with the cheque. Nevertheless it would be a travesty of justice if he is sent to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence after the lapse of so many years. Therefore, having regard to the fact that petitioner had refunded the entire money and is facing the agony of trial for the last nineteen years, he has lost his service and acquired a family meanwhile, I think, it would meet the ends of justice, if while maintaining the conviction, the petitioner''s sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and I order accordingly. The petitioner be discharged from the bail bond.

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT accordingly