The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient evidence to prove a defendant's connection with the alleged criminal activities. In this case, the court emphasized the lack of evidence connecting the revisionist with the person who had opened the account and presented the forged cheques.

JUDGMENT :

The challenge in this revision is made to the following judgment and orders:-

(i) judgment and order dated 10.08.2010, passed in Criminal Case No. 1394 of 2010, State vs. Sushil Kumar, (“the case”), passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) /Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. By it, the revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC. But, he has been convicted under Section 419 & 420 of IPC. The revisionist has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 419 IPC, with the stipulation that, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The revisionist has further been sentenced three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 420 IPC, with the stipulation that, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 08.12.2010, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2010, Sushil Kumar Vs. State, by the court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appeal has been dismissed and conviction and sentence, as recorded in the case, has been upheld.

2. Facts which emerged from the record are as follows:-

(i) On 08.03.2010, an Account No. 091301502526 (“the account”) was opened in the name of Deepak Kumar in the I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Branch Roorkee (“the Bank”). At the time of opening of the account, the Voter I.D. and Driving Licence were presented.

(ii) On 04.04.2010, a cheque of Rs. 14,56,000/- of the Punjab National Bank was deposited in the account. It was forged. The account holder was traced, but, he could not be contacted by the bank officials, therefore, the account was marked debit freezed. Subsequently on 12.04.2010, again a cheque amounting to Rs. 18,50,000/- of Bank of Baroda, was presented for clearing in the account of said Deepak Kumar. The bank officials tried to contact the account holder, but, they could not trace him. It so happened that on 15.04.2010. The said Deepak Kumar, according to the FIR, visited the bank for withdrawal of the money. He was questioned by the bank officers, and, at the same time, police was informed. He was arrested. Prior to it, on 12.04.2010 itself, the FIR was lodged by PW1 Prabhpreet Singh Sehgal, the Branch Manager of the Bank.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that when the revisionist apprehended, an identity card of Sushil Kumar was recovered from his possession. After investigation charge-sheet under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC was submitted against the revisionist. On 29.06.2010, charge under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC was framed.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Prabhpreet Singh, PW2 Tarun Gauhari, PW3 Varun Kalra, PW4 Gaurav Pundir, PW5 Subhodh Kumar Sharma, PW6 Constable Police, Gambhir Singh and PW7 Govind Kumar, S.I., the Investigating Officer.

5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to him, he has falsely been prosecuted.

6. After hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist unsuccessfully filed the appeal. Hence, the revision.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that there is no evidence against the revisionist. There is no document allegedly written by the revisionist. There is no Forensic Science Report. Merely, on the basis of recovery of some identity card from his pocket, he has been convicted. Therefore, the conviction and sentence is without any evidence and interference is required in this revision.

8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the prosecution witnesses has stated about the prosecution case. He would impress upon the evidence of PW4 Gaurav Pundir, to argue that, it is