Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Jitender Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 773 of 2018 & Crl.M.A. 4102 of 2019
Decided On : 19-02-2020
The court established that a modified conviction under Section 420/511 IPC was justified due to insufficient evidence for successful commission of the offence and affirmed the principles guiding probation assessment based on circumstances and offender’s background.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120B - The court modified the conviction from Section 420 IPC to Section 420/511 IPC, with a sentence of 2 years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/- for attempting to cheat the licensing authority. (Paras 1, 8, 9)
(B) Criminal law - Standards of proof - The appellate court finds that the petitioner made an attempt to cheat, as the licence was not granted, and confirms the conviction under Sections 468/471 IPC. (Paras 8, 9)
(C) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - The court considered the petitioner's age and circumstances, finding him suitable for probation rather than imprisonment after a satisfactory social investigation report. (Paras 11, 14, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for an arms licence using a forged certificate from a security agency, leading to his arrest and conviction for conspiracy and forgery. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The appellate court upheld the conviction under Section 468/471 IPC, modified the conviction to reflect an unsuccessful attempt to commit the offence. (Paras 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient for conviction and the appropriateness of probation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the necessity of evaluating the offender's background and circumstances in determining the appropriateness of probation.
Result: Application for probation allowed, and the petitioner to be released on probation under stipulated conditions. (Paras 17, 18)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and conviction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. probation principles and judicial discretion. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion on probation application. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2018 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge in CRL.A. 263/2017 arising out of FIR No. 388/2008 registered under Sections 419/420/468/471/120B IPC, P.S. Defence Colony wherein the petitioner's conviction under Section 420 IPC was modified and altered to one S. 420/511 IPC. The petitioner's sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 420/511 IPC was also modified and altered to RI for two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to whereof to undergo SI for six months. The petitioner's conviction under Sections 468/471 IPC and sentence was maintained.
2. Earlier the Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 24.05.2017 had convicted the petitioner under Sections 420/468/471 IPC and sentenced the petitioner to RI for two years for the offence under Section 420 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof to undergo SI for six months. The petitioner was sentenced to RI for two years for the offence under Section 468 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof to undergo SI for six months. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 471 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently and the petitioner was granted benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
3. The brief facts as noted by the Appellate Court are as under:
"Appellant Jitender Kumar applied for fresh arms licence on 18.06.2008 with Licencing Unit. In his application Ex. PW2/A, appellant stated that he was working as Security Guard with Sun Rise Security Force. Appellant also submitted certificate Ex. PW2/C purportedly to be issued by Security Agency signed by one Hardev Singh in support of his employment. Application of appellant was processed and inquiry was conducted through SI Shiv Singh (PW2). During inquiry it was revealed that certificate annexed with the application of appellant was forged. Inquiry further disclosed that one Mintu Kumar is proprietor of Sun Rise Security Force who informed SI Shiv Singh (PW-2) that letter pad belongs to his office but no person with the name Hardev Singh is working as General Manager in his security agency. Mintu Kumar further informed that one Pinku, working as Security Guard, has taken plain letter head sheet from his on the pretext of preparing his ration card. Thereafter, SI Shiv Singh made complaint to SHO PS Defence Colony, Investigation was conducted. Appellant was arrested and was interrogated who disclosed that he got letter head of Sun Rise Security Force through one Pinku who is the friend of his brother Santosh. Santosh is working as Security Guard with Group 4 Security. The said letters pad was used to show Jitender Kumar was an employee of Sun Rise Security Force. The stamp used on the letter head was forged and procured by appellant Jitender Kumar and he himself put his signatures as General Manager of M/s. Sun Rise Security Force showing name of General Manger as Hardev Singh. Appellant Jitender Kumar during custody got the stamp recovered from his house. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of appellant, Santosh was also arrested for procuring letter paid for the purpose of preparing false claim of Jitender Kumar showing his employment with Sun Rise Security Force. Pinku and Mintu were also arrested for being involved in the conspiracy knowing that letter head of Sun Rise Security Force was to be used for illegal purposes. During investigation, specimen signatures of all aforesaid persons were obtained. Specimen of letter head of Sun Rise Security Force and sample stamp impression of stamp recover from appellant were also sent to F
