Narender Singh vs State of Haryana

The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the

judgment dated 15.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Hisar whereby his appeal against the judgment of conviction dated

16.07.2016 and order of sentence dated 20.07.2016 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, was dismissed.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has not

challenged the conviction of the petitioner and has confined his prayer to the

extent that the case of petitioner be considered on quantum of sentence and he

be released on probation of good conduct.

Notice of motion limited to the above extent.

On asking of this Court, Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana

accepts notice of the petition.

Briefly stated, facts of the prosecution case are that an

application bearing No.34P dated 19.01.2012 was received in the office of

Superintendent of Police, Hisar with the averments that an interview has been

held for the appointment of Anganwari Worker for the year 2010-11 on the

direction of Director Woman and Child Development Department in which

from Adampur Block, a candidate succeeded in selection on the basis of fake

Detailed Marks Card (DMC). On the basis of complaint made by another

waiting candidate, enquiry was conducted and it was noticed that the DMC

has been altered. The DMC had been sent to the concerned Board for

verification and the same was found to be false.

On the basis of these allegations, the FIR No.351 dated

21.06.2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was registered

at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar against selected candidate Suman Bala.

On the basis of fake DMC, Suman Bala got a job as Anganwari Worker and

had drawn the salary for four months. On 21.06.2012, accused Suman Bala

was arrested in the instant case. During interrogation, she had suffered a

disclosure statement that she contacted Narender Singh, petitioner herein,

who is doing the work of providing education degree from the other Board

and obtained a fake degree from Varanasi. Petitioner Narender Singh was also

arrested during investigation on 01.11.2012 and he made a disclosure

statement in which he named accused Raj Kumar. Thus, accused Raj Kumar

was also arrested on 02.12.2012. One more accused, namely, Rajesh Sharma

was found to be involved in the case, but he could not be arrested.

Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion

of investigation, Challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the

Court against accused Suman Bala, Narender Singh and Raj Kumar. Copies

of Challan, as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to the

accused. Finding a prima-facie case against the petitioner and other co-

accused, they were charge sheeted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and

120-B IPC.

After considering the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial

Court, vide judgment dated 16.07.2016, held the petitioner and other two co-

accused guilty for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and

471 read with Section 120-B IPC. Vide separate order dated 20.07.2016

passed by the trial Court, the petitioner and other co-accused were sentenced

as under:

Offence Sentence

Section 420 read with Simple imprisonment for three years and Section 120-B IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

Section 467 read with Simple imprisonment for three years and Section 120-B IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

Section 468 read with Simple imprisonment for three years and Section 120-B IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

Section 471 read with Simple imprisonment for three years and Section 120-B IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

In default of payment of fine, the petitioner and other co-accused

were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six

months. However, it was ordered that all the substantive sentences shall run

concurrently.

Aggrieved against the aforementioned judgment and order

passed by learned trial Court, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the

Court of Session, but the same was also dismissed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 15.05.2017. However, conviction

of the petitioner under Section 467 read with Section 120-B IPC was changed

to Section 465 read with Section 120-B IPC. The petitioner was ordered to

undergo simple imprisonment of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-

under Section 465 read with Section 120-B IPC.

It is in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this

Court by filing the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

petitioner is a poor person and is a married person having one son. His elder

brother has expired and responsibility to look after the children of his brother

also upon him. His father has already expired and he is having old aged

mother. Except the petitioner, there is no male member in the family to look

after them. He is a first time offender and has been facing the agony of

criminal proceedings for the last more than five years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of

this Court in S.P. Malhotra Versus U.T. Chandigarh 2007(3) RCR

(Criminal) 735 wherein the trial Court had convicted the accused under

Section 420 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of three years. However, this Court released the accused on probation

of good conduct.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, though has not disputed

the custody of the petitioner, but has argued that learned trial Court as well as

learned appellate Court have already taken a lenient view regarding the

sentence of petitioner. Thus, no interference is warranted in the quantum of

sentence.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

On perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court

is of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the findings

given by both the Courts below regarding conviction of the petitioner which

may warrant interference of this Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction.

Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the

judgments of conviction and, rather, has prayed for release of the petitioner

on probation. The conviction of the petitioner is, therefore, affirmed.

So far as prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner for releasing

the petitioner on probation of good conduct is concerned, this Court feels that

the purpose of criminal law justice is not only to bring peace, harmony and

discipline in the society, but also to give an opportunity to an erring

individual to reform himself, so that there is everlasting peace in the society.

This view finds support from the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the

case of Karamjit Singh Versus State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) SCC 161,

wherein the following observations were made:

"Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative

aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case the Court has to weight the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is what is needed in such a case, a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law."

Thus, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in S.P.

Malhotra''s case (supra) and in Karamjit Singh''s case (supra), as well as the

fact that the petitioner has not crossed the age whereby he cannot be

reformed, particularly when he is first time offender and facing the agony of

trial for the last more than five years, it is ordered that the petitioner be

released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act,

1958, for a period of one year on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Hisar with an undertaking that during the period of one

year, he shall not commit an offence and shall maintain peace and be of good

behaviour. In case the petitioner violates the terms of the bonds, he shall

appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar to receive his remaining

sentence.

With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, the

present revision petition stands disposed of.