Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 157
2012(1) JLJ 406
Smt. S.R. Waghmare, J.
Nisar Ahmed v. State of M.P.
Criminal Revisions No.37, 86, 90, 91 and 92 of 2011 (Indore);
Decided on 6.3.2012.
Vikash Rathi for petitioner;
Ms. Mamta Shandilya for respondent/State.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.397 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 -- offence of forged receipt/challan for payment of vehicle‘s tax filed before RTO -- five cases registered for same offence -- charge found proved by report and evidence of handwriting expert -- such evidence corroborated by evidence of other witnesses -- conviction and sentence against accused in all cases separately -- such order upheld by appellate Court -- no interference called for in revision. [Paras 8 & 9
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.427 -- custodial sentence undergone -- sentence cannot be reduced to the period already undergone -- because there is conviction for same offences in all five cases -- it is directed that sentence shall run concurrently in all the five cases. [Para 9
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkj 420] 467] 468 rFkk 471 && izknsf‘kd ifjogu vf/kdkjh ds le{k ;ku dk dj Hkqxrku ds fy, dwVjfpr jlhn@pkyku izLrqr fd, tkus dk vijk/k && ogh vijk/k ds fy, ik¡p izdj.k ntZ fd, x, && gLrys[k fo‘ks"k ds izfrosnu rFkk lk{; ls vkjksi lkfcr ik;k x;k && ,slh lk{; vU; lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; ls lefFkZr && vfHk;qDr ds fo:) leLr izdj.kksa esa i`FkDr% nks"kflf) rFkk naMkns‘k && ,slk vkns‘k vihy U;k;ky; }kjk fLFkj j[kk x;k && iqujh{k.k esa gLr{ksi visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 8 rFkk 9
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 427 && naMkns‘k dkjkok Hkqxrk x;k && iwoZ ls gh Hkqxrs x, naMkns‘k dh dkykof/k dks de ugha fd;k tk ldrk && D;ksafd ogh vijk/kksa ds fy, leLr ik¡pksa izdj.kksa esa nks"kflf) gS && ;g funsf‘kr fd;k x;k fd leLr ik¡pksa izdj.kksa esa nks"kfl) gS && ;g funsf‘kr fd;k x;k fd leLr ik¡pksa izdj.kksa esa naMkns‘k lkFk&lkFk pysxkA ¼iSjk 9
J. -- 1. These are 5 Criminal Revisions No.37/2011, 86/2011, 90/2011, 91/2011 and 92/2011 filed by the same petitioner Nisar Ahmed s/o Ali Mohammad against judgments passed by the same Judge in a series of transactions which are connected to each other and judgment passed in this petition shall govern all the other petitions.
2. The petitioner Nisar Ahmed is aggrieved by the judgments of conviction passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeals No.201/10, 202/10, 203/10, 204/10 and 205/10 passed by the Sessions and Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rajgarh, Biaora convicting the accused in all the petitions for offences which are mentioned as under :
Section Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu of fine
420 of the IPC 1 year RI Rs.1,000/- 1 month SI
467 of the IPC 3 years RI Rs.2,000/- 2 months SI
468 of the IPC 1 year RI Rs.1,000/- 1 month SI
471 of the IPC 1 year RI Rs.1,000/- 1 month SI
All the offences taken together would therefore be on five counts each.
3. Counsel for the petitioner briefly stating the facts of the case indicated that on behalf of the prosecution the then Regional Transport Officer, Rajgarh Shri Brijnarayan Sharma (PW1) filed a written report on 28.7.2001 at PS Kotwali, Rajgarh to state that accused Bhagwan Dash Sahu who was the owner of the registration vehicle bearing No.MP09/D-573 filed a receipt for Rs.650/- for the month of June, 2001 before the District Officer Rajgarh. On verification of this challan Ex.P-2 from the District Treasury Officer, Rajgarh and State Bank of Indore, Branch at Narsinghgarh, Regional Transport Officer found that the total amount of Rs.650/- was neither deposited in the Bank or the Treasury and the first information report Ex.P-14 was filed to this effect before the Police Station Rajgarh. Upon investigation, Ex.P-2 challan and its examination by the handwriting expert, it was found that it was in the handwriting of co-accused Nisar and on completion of the investigation the accused was also duly proceeded and on completion of investigation the accused Nisar was also charged and duly committed to his trial. The trial Court on considering the evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as herein above indicated. The trial Court however acquitted the co-accused Bhagwan Das Sahu and Intekhav @ Balla.The appellate Court upheld the convictions and hence the present revisions for setting aside the impugned convictions. Counsel prayed that the accused be acquitted.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that although Ex.P-5 was the written complaint filed by the complainant RTO Brij Narayan Sharma (PW1); it is full of discrepancies and there are material omissions and contradictions in his testimony. He urged that in all, 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution; however none of them have supported the prosecution case but the trial Court however has convicted the accused on the sole basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert that it was Nisar who had committed the forgery in the challan Ex.P-2. Counsel more vehemently urged that the specimen signatures of the petitioner were taken in prison without obtaining proper permission from the Magistrate as is required under the provisions of law. Counsel stated that under sections 4 and 5 of the identification of Prisoners Act 1920, although there should be no possibility of fabrication of evidence and to dispel any suspicion. Counsel relied on Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan [(1997)10 SCC 44], whereby the Court held that in such an instance case serious doubt on the circumstances surrounding the prosecution hence counsel prayed that the conviction be set aside. Moreover, one of the panch witnesses of seizure has not been examined whereas the other has turned hostile. The very fact that 5 cases were lodged by the prosecution against the accused on the same day itself was indicative of the fact that the petitioner was victimised by the respo
