Criminal Revision No.3278 of 2011

..1..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.3278 of 2011

Date of Decision: 13^thFebruary, 2013

Sunil Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr.Rajbir Wasu, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.Piyush Singla, Deputy Advocate

General, Punjab.

* * *

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

Prayer in this criminal revision petition is for setting aside

the judgment dated 07.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Jalandhar, to the extent that the

case was wrongly remanded to the Court of the learned Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, to examine the handwriting expert

and to decide the matter afresh.

Brief facts of the case are that on 08.07.2000, Subash

Chander-complainant got recorded his statement before ASI

Kulwant Singh to the effect that his father used to go to abroad in

connection with business. A few letters were received in the name

of his father on 26.06.2000; 02.07.2000; 05.07.2000 and

08.07.2000 and ` 3,00,000/-, ` 1,50,000/-, ` 2,00,000/- and

` 2,00,000/- respectively were demanded. It is written in the letters

that the money be kept near Parchin Shiv Mandir, Dhobi Ghat, and if

Criminal Revision No.3278 of 2011

..2..

the money was not given, both the children will be killed alike the

children of Kamal. The letters were written in Hindi. He further

stated that on receipt of the letters, he along with his father and

uncle, Gopal Krishan, made inquiry and they were very sure that

these letters had been written by Sunil Kumar son of Murlidharan

Pandit, priest of the Hanuman Mandir, Maqdumpura. He further

stated that a letter of the same nature was also received by Vinod

Bhalla, the owner of King Hotel. After recording statement of the

complainant, a ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of

the case, on the basis of which, the formal FIR was recorded.

Investigation was carried out. Accused was arrested and after

completion of necessary formalities of investigation, challan against

the accused was presented before the learned Illaqa Magistrate.

In order to prove its case against the accused before the

learned trial court, the prosecution had examined the following

witnesses:-

PW-1Om Parkash

PW-2Subash Chander

PW-3Gopal Krishan

PW-4Satpal

PW-5Ashrafi Lal

PW-6Raman Negi

PW-7Kulwant Singh

After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement

of the petitioner-accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C.

In his defence, the accused (petitioner) examined DW-1-

Mul Chand.

The learned trial court after appreciation of the law and

the evidence brought on record, convicted the accused (petitioner)

Criminal Revision No.3278 of 2011

..3..

for the offence punishable under Section 387, IPC and sentenced

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay

fine of ` 1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous

imprisonment for one month.

The petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and

sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track

Court) Jalandhar, who vide order dated 07.09.2011 set aside the

judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial

court and remitted the matter to the learned trial court by holding

as under:-

“13. That main contention of learned counsel for the

appellant/accused is that the report of Forensic Science

Laboratory, Chandigarh, is not admissible in evidence as

no opportunity of cross-examination has been given to

the accused and in support of his contention, learned

counsel for the appellant/accused has relied upon the

case law cited as Ayyub Ali vs. State of Madhaya Pradesh,

2008 Criminal Law Journal, 2216, wherein it has been

held in para No.7 that it is well settled legal proposition

that the mere exhibition of handwriting expert report