The central legal point established in the judgment is the prosecution's burden of proving the accused's use of forged documents and the accused's involvement in a criminal conspiracy, along with the admissibility of recovery based on disclosure statements.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J —Vide this judgment, I propose to dispose of three criminal revisions i.e. CRR-3335-2017 filed by petitioner Anik Bansal, CRR3556-2017 filed by petitioner Vinkal Arora and CRR-3597-2017 filed by petitioner Anurag Chadda.

2. These revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 5.9.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which the judgment dated 21.2.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri convicting accused for offences under Sections 468, 471, 506 read with Section 120-B IPC and order dated 23.2.2015 sentencing them for those offence were upheld, whereas the appeals filed by accused-convicts were dismissed.

3. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri had sentenced the accused as under:

4. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. The accused-convicts, who are petitioners before this Court pray that the revision petitions be accepted, the impugned judgment of their conviction and order of sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and judgment in appeal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri be set aside and they be acquitted of the charge framed against them.

6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecutuion story are that criminal machinery was set into motion by complainant Ajay Kumar, who in a written complaint submitted to the police had alleged that he has been running a shop under the name and style of Jaiswal Gift Centre dealing with mobile phones and recharge coupons; that he had received a telephonic call from Gandhi Nagar, Police Station to the effect that he had issued several Airtel sim cards on forged ID proofs but he denied having done so; that subsequently it came out that Vinkal Proprietor of Sunny communication had prepared a forged stamp of shop of complainant and issued several Airtel sim cards. After registration of the formal FIR, the matter was investigated. Prima facie involvement of Vinkal Arora, Anik Bansal and Anurag Chadda in the scam was found to be there. They were arrested and later on released on bail.

7. After completion of investigation and other formalities, challan against the accused was prepared and filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

8. On presentation of challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, copies of documents relied upon in the challan were supplied to the accused free of costs as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

9. Finding that charge for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC was disclosed against the accused, they were charge-sheeted accordingly, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case was then fixed for evidence of prosecution.

10. To bring home guilt to the accused, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses i.e. PW1 Nonesh, PW2 Ajay Kumar, PW3 EASI Ragubir Singh, PW4 MASI Dharam Singh, PW5 Constable Anil Kumar, PW6 ASI Balraj Singh, PW7 HC Dal Singh, PW8 EHC Jai Pal, PW9 Dr.Kanta Malik, PW10 Sumant Aggarwal, Nodal Officer, PW11 Gajender Kumar and PW12 Vinod Kumar besides tendering some documents.

11. With that the prosecution evidence stood closed.

12. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them were put to such accused but they denied the same contending that they are innocent and have been falsely involved in this case.

13. In defence evidence,