2025:UHC:9955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No.185 of 2024

Dharamveer Singh ....Revisionist (in jail)

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

Presence: Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the Revisionist.

Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned A.G.A., for State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision is directed against the

judgment and order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2023, whereby the Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Revisionist by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, in Criminal Case No. 132 of

2018.

2. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 13.09.2023, convicted

the Revisionist under Sections 197 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on each count, along with a fine of ₹2,000 on each

count, with default stipulations.

3. During the pendency of this Revision, this Court enlarged

the Revisionist on bail vide order dated 12.08.2024.

4. The case arises from an allegation that during the 2011–

2012 recruitment process for the post of Constable in the Uttarakhand Police, the Revisionist submitted a written declaration stating that no criminal case was pending against him.

5. It was later discovered that a Sessions Trial relating to an earlier FIR was pending on the date of his recruitment declaration.

6. On this basis, N.C.R. No. 13 of 2017 was registered at Pithoragarh on 24.04.2017, alleging that the Revisionist’s declaration was false and amounted to knowingly issuing a false certificate and making a false statement on oath, thereby attracting Sections 197 and 200 I.P.C.

7. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the year 2018, culminating in Criminal Case No. 132 of 2018 before the Trial Court.

8. The Trial Court held that the declaration was factually incorrect and that the Revisionist had knowingly suppressed material facts with an intention to mislead the authorities during recruitment.

9. The Appellate Court affirmed these findings and upheld the conviction and sentence.

10. Learned Counsel for the Revisionist submits that the alleged offence was committed on 15.02.2012, when the declaration was executed, and therefore, cognizance taken on the basis of an N.C.R. registered on 24.04.2017 was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

11. It is argued that both Sections 197 and 200 I.P.C. are punishable up to three years’ imprisonment, attracting a limitation period of three years. Thus, cognizance beyond three years without a reasoned order under Section 473 Cr.P.C. renders the entire proceedings void.

12. It is further submitted that neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court has recorded any finding as to the date on which the alleged falsity came to the knowledge of the aggrieved authority, as required under Section 469 Cr.P.C.

13. Learned Counsel contends that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Sections 197 and 200 I.P.C., namely that the Revisionist knowingly issued a false certificate or made a false declaration on a point material in law.

14. It is also urged that the Appellate Court did not independently reappraise the evidence and merely affirmed the findings of the Trial Court without addressing the defence submissions.

15. On the contrary learned A.G.A. submits that the declaration submitted by the Revisionist was demonstrably false, and its suppression of a pending Sessions Trial was material to the recruitment process.

16. It is contended that the falsity came to light only when verification was undertaken years later, and the N.C.R. was registered thereafter. Thus, the prosecution is not hit by limitation, as the date of knowledge would shift the commencement of limitation under Section 469 Cr.P.C.

17. Learned A.G.A. argues that the Trial Court and Appellate Court have both delivered concurrent findings based on documentary a