Sandeep vs State of U.T.

R.P. Nagrath, J.—By this common order, CRR No. 1621 of 2014 and CRR No. 1653 of 2014 which arise out of the same judgment of trial Court in FIR No. 123 of 26.05.2009 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh, are being disposed of.

The recruitment process of Constables in Chandigarh Police was scheduled to be held on 26.05.2009. The prosecution story that emerged during the trial is that SI Shadi Lal (PW-1) was assigned duty to tally the photographs of candidates affixed on the application forms from serial No. 1005757 to 1005881, in the holding area of Police Line, Sector 26, Chandigarh. That was the date fixed for the physical test.

It was found during the checking that Sonu son of Ram Chander petitioner in CRR No. 1653 of 2014 had impersonated for the actual candidate, namely; Sandeep son of Satvir petitioner in CRR No. 1621 of 2014. The photograph affixed on the application form No. 1005794 of Sandeep was not matching with Sonu who appeared for the physical test. Sonu-petitioner on being asked gave his real name and particulars. It was stated by PW-1 SI Shadi Lal that Sonu aforesaid also appended his signatures on form Ex. P3 as Sandeep for marking his presence as the genuine candidate.

Local police was called and a complaint Ex. P1 was made to PW-3 SI Baljinder Singh, Investigating Officer and Sonu-petitioner was arrested. Photographs of petitioner being present in the holding area alongwith application form of Sandeep were also taken as also testified by PW-1 and PW-3 SI Baljinder Singh. The photographs of Sonu-petitioner are Ex. PW-3/C to PW-3/E.

On the same day Sandeep was also arrested by the police.

The factum that Sandeep-petitioner in CRR No. 1621 of 2014 had applied for the post of Constable is not disputed. It was also not disputed that the date for physical test of candidates including Sandeep-petitioner was 26.05.2009. The application form/admit car of Sandeep-petitioner for the post of Constable are Ex. P4 and P5, bearing his signatures. The factum that SI Shadi Lal PW-1 was deputed for the said duty is also proved by the office order Ex. P12, issued by the Incharge of Police Lines.

The other witness examined by the prosecution was PW2 Gurnek Singh, who proved relevant instructions to be followed in the recruitment process and various office orders including the order Ex. P12 as noted above.

Learned trial Court framed charges against both the petitioners for offences under Sections 120B, 419 read with Section 120B and Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. It merged during the trial that in fact the physical test was yet to held and Sonu-petitioner was apprehended during scrutiny of documents and verification of candidates. The petitioner were, however, convicted for offences under Sections 419 and 120B IPC.

Learned trial Court awarded the sentence to Sonu-petitioner in CRR No. 1653 of 2014 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Sections 120B and 419 IPC. Similarly, Sandeep-petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each under Sections 120B and also u/s 419 read with Section 120B IPC.

Learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence from one year and six months rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment for these offences.

Learned counsel for Sandeep-petitioner in CRR No. 1621 of 2014 did not challenge the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below and confined his argument only qua quantum of sentence. Learned counsel for Sonu-petitioner in CRR No. 1653 of 2014 has, however, challenged the findings of conviction.

I have hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, the State counsel, perused the judgments of both the Courts below and also the trial Court record.

It was contended by learned counsel for Sonu-petitioner in CRR No. 1653 of 2014 that both the Courts below have failed to consider the contention that in fact there was altercation between PW-1 and Sandeep-petitioner who in fact had brought his luggage inside the holding area for which PW-1 became annoyed and rebuked him. Sandeep then just went outside to hand over the same to Sonu but because of the quarrel they were apprehended. It is further submitted that Sonu in fact was also a candidate who was to appear in the physical test on 27.05.2009. Sonu thus had anxiety to go around the area for preparing himself for the test. This contention has to be rejected outrightly because Sandeep has not challenged his conviction on the above ground.

With regard to the plea of Sonu being a candidate who was supposed to appear on 27.05.2009, there is simply a suggestion to PW-1 and PW-3 but no admit card of Sonu for his being a candidate in the selection process has been placed on record. No evidence was either led in defence by summoning the record of candidates to support this contention. If it was so there is absolutely nothing for this Court to come to a contrary view as concurrently held by both the Courts below.

It is also a settled principle that there is little scope of interference in the concurrent findings of the lower Courts, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court especially when there is enough of convincing evidence available on record. There is nothing to suggest that those findings are perverse or in ignorance of the material on record.

Therefore, the conviction recorded by learned Courts below against Sonu-petitioner is also upheld whereas Sandeep-petitioner in CRR No. 1653 of 2014 has not questioned his conviction.

On the quantum of sentence, both the petitioners have undergone two months and twenty two days of imprisonment. That seems to be sufficient punishment in the circumstances of the case because before the physical test was to begin Sandeep petitioner was caught. It is also not a case that where a fake admit card with fake photograph of the candidate was prepared. Both the petitioners are young boys. FIR was registered about five years ago.

Looking into the above circumstances and facts of the case, the period for which the petitioners have remained in custody would be sufficient punishment. The instant revisions are dismissed on merits with modification on the quantum of sentence that the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period undergone by the petitioners, maintaining the sentence of fine as imposed by the trial Court and the default clause.