The non-examination of the Investigating Officer and lack of corroboration can lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution, affecting the case's sufficiency.

Judgment

Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The instant revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in FIR No. 309 dated 05.10.2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 511 of the IPC registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, has been upheld. The petitioner has been sentenced as under:

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The facts, in brief, are that Rajeev Kumar-petitioner furnished bail/surety bonds in case titled ‘State versus Gurpreet Singh’ bearing FIR No. 429 dated 22.08.2013 under Sections 406, 498-A of the IPC for accused Gurpreet Singh, who was lodged in jail. The petitioner furnished surety bonds along with one affidavit, fard jamabandi, application regarding verification of property containing a report of Tehsildar (West) Ludhiana and a copy of his voter identity card. The complainant-Mewa Singh, who was a Reader in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, got suspicious of the documents furnished and enquired about their veracity. Upon his asking, the petitioner admitted that the above mentioned papers were forged. The complainant informed the Presiding Officer, who further authorised him to take necessary action in accordance with law and an FIR came to be registered against the present petitioner.

3. During the course of the investigation, statements were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and disclosure statement of the petitioner was also recorded, followed by presentation of the challan. On finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, charges under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 506 of the IPC were framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded false implication but did not lead any evidence in his defence. Subsequently, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 15.02.2017. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the petitioner approached the learned lower Appellate Court, where his appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 26.10.2023.

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vigorously contends that both the learned Courts below have failed to consider that the Investigating Officer was not made available for cross-examination which jeopardises the entire investigation. Further, the witnesses produced by the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged forged documents were prepared by the petitioner. The handwriting and signatures on the alleged forged documents were not compared with the standard handwriting and signature of the petitioner. Moreover, neither Gurpreet Singh, beneficiary of the bail, nor his advocate were examined to establish the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was asked to stand surety for Gurpreet Singh and was unaware of the documents attached with the bail bonds.

6. Per contra learned State counsel submits that sufficient material is available on record to prove the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged incident and both the Courts below have rightly convicted