CRL.. Rev. P. 773/2018 Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.REV.P.773/2018& CRL.M.A. 4102/2019

Reserved on:

03.02.2020

Date of Decision: 19.02.2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

SH. JITENDER KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sajan K. Singh and Ms. Neha

Sharma, Advs.

Versus

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

J U D G M E N T

1. The present revision petition is directed against the impugned

judgment dated 29.08.2018 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge in CRL.A.

263/2017 arising out of FIR No. 388/2008 registered under Sections

419/420/468/471/120B IPC, P.S. Defence Colony wherein the

petitioner’s conviction under Section 420 IPC was modified and altered

to one S. 420/511 IPC. The petitioner’s sentence for the offence

punishable under Sections 420/511 IPC was also modified and altered to

2020:DHC:1223

CRL.. Rev. P. 773/2018 Page 2 of 9

RI for two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to whereof to

undergo SI for six months. The petitioner’s conviction under Sections

468/471 IPC and sentence was maintained.

2. Earlier the Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated

24.05.2017 had convicted the petitioner under Sections 420/468/471 IPC

and sentenced the petitioner to RI for two years for the offence under

Section 420 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof to undergo SI

for six months. The petitioner was sentenced to RI for two years for the

offence under Section 468 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof

to undergo SI for six months. The petitioner was also sentenced to

undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 471 IPC. The

sentences were directed to run concurrently and the petitioner was

granted benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

3. The brief facts as noted by the Appellate Court are as under:-

2020:DHC:1223

CRL.. Rev. P. 773/2018 Page 3 of 9

Jitender Kumar was convicted as mentioned above.”

2020:DHC:1223

CRL.. Rev. P. 773/2018 Page 4 of 9

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused

were acquitted by the trial court and despite insufficient evidence, the

petitioner was illegally convicted. It was further contended that the

recovery of ‘stamp’ from the house of the petitioner was effected in

absence of any independent witness.

5. As noted above, the petitioner in order to obtain an arms licence

submitted

a

certificate

(Ex.PW2/C)

alongwith

his

application

(Ex.PW2/A) purportedly issued by Sun Rise Security Force and signed

by one Hardev Singh.

6. SI Shiv Singh (PW2) deposed that to determine the genuineness of

petitioner’s application, an enquiry was conducted on the direction of

Addl Commissioner of police (Licensing). He went to the office of Sun

Rise Security Force at Rithala where the proprietor Mintu Singh

disclosed that Hardev Singh was not employed in his office and the

petitioner also never worked with them.

7. The prosecution had examined Alok Kumar Mehta, Senior

Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL Delhi to prove the FSL report

(PW7/A) as per which, the petitioner’s signatures were proved on the

application form (Ex.PW2/A) as well as on the affidavit (Ex.PW2/B). As

per the FSL report, it also stood proved that the impression of stamp of

Sun Rise Security Force on the certificate (Ex.PW2/C) tallied with the

impression of the stamp which was recovered from the house of the

petitione