Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Gurjeet Singh – Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2013
Decided On : 05-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Revisionist :Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate alongwith Mr. Basant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General alongwith Ms. Mamta Joshi

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release the accused on probation based on the nature of the offence, the character of the offender, and the circumstances of the case.

Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Revision - 420/511 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC - The court affirmed the conviction of the accused under Sections 420/511 IPC, 468 IPC, and 471 IPC. The sentence was modified to release the accused on probation for a period of one year.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for forging his date of birth in an application for a passport. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and documentary evidence to prove the case against the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the case of the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt and affirmed the conviction of the accused under the relevant sections of the IPC.
Issues: The issues included the conviction of the accused for forgery and the subsequent appeal for modifying the sentence based on the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the offence, the character of the offender, and the circumstances of the case in applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release the accused on probation.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction of the accused but modified the sentence to release the accused on probation for a period of one year, with the option to cancel the probation if the accused fails to observe good conduct and behavior.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2013, passed by 3rd Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2008 Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist/accused was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 26.02.2008 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.449 of 2006(98) State Vs. Gurjeet Singh, whereby, the conviction of revisionist/ accused was modified only from 420 IPC to 420/511 IPC, rest of the part of conviction was affirmed and modified as under:-

S. No.	Conviction	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in-lieu of fine
1.	420/511 IPC	Six months’ R.I.	Rs.1,500/-	2 months’ additional S.I.
2.	468 IPC	One years’ R.I.	Rs.1,500/-	2 months’ additional S.I.
3.	471 IPC	One years’ R.I.	Rs.1,500/-	2 months’ additional S.I.

Aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The facts of the case are that the complainant-informant Ajay Kumar Singh, Inspector, Local Intelligence Unit, Udham Singh Nagar made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar stating therein that the revisionist/accused-Gurjeet Singh has moved an application for seeking passport and during the inquiry of the said application-file no.402(2230)/98, which was conducted by Sub-Inspector, L.I.U. Lakshmi Narayan Tyagi, it came to the notice that the revisionist/accused has made interpolation in his date of birth, which was written as 01.07.1980 in Column-4 of the personal details form and changed it by cutting and overwriting to 01.01.1973. On further inquiry, it was found that in the family register of the revisionist/accused maintained at Gram Sabha Bhitaura, on page number 101, the date of birth of revisionist/accused-Gurjeet Singh was recorded as 1975. On further inquiry, it was found that revisionist/ accused-Gurjeet Singh passed High School Examination in the year 1997 from Guru Nanak Higher Secondary School, Sitarganj and in his high-school certificate/ mark-sheet, the date of birth is recorded as 01.07.1980. It is further contended by the informant that the revisionist/accused-Gurjeet Singh annexed transfer certificate of Sarvodaya Purva Madhyamik School (Junior High School), Sitarganj with his application form in proof of his date of birth, but when enquired regarding this certificate, it was found on the information given by Mr. Dhruv Narayan Sharma-Head Master, Sarvodaya Purva Madhyamik School, Sitarganj that the revisionist/ accused-Gurjeet Singh, S/o Anokh Singh, R/o Bhitaura Police Station, Sitarganj, was never been student of the aforesaid school and no such transfer certificate was ever been issued to him by the said school. In the scholar register, instead of name of revisionist/accused-Gurjeet Singh, the name of one-Rakesh Mittal, S/o Fateh Chandra Mittal, R/o Rampura, Sitarganj was entered at S.No. 788. According to the informant, the date of birth certificate annexed by Gurjeet Singh-revisionist/accused obtained from Sarvodaya Purva Madhyamik School, Sitarganj was a forged document.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a first information report was registered against the revisionist/accused under Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC and after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted to the Court for trial.

5. During trial, in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW-1 Baldev Singh, PW-2 Laxminarayan, PW-3 Ajay Kumar Singh, PW-4 Sub-Inspector Ajay Pal Gautam, PW-5 Dhruv Narayan Sharma and PW-6 Constable Harimohan were examined and the documentary evidence, personal details sheet of the revisionist/accused Ext.Ka-2, photocopy of family register Ext.Ka-3, photocopy of letter from Sarvodaya Purva Madh