Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1424 OF 2009

Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora … Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab  … Respondent

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO………….OF 2015

Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.…..Crl.M.P.No. 7170 OF 2007)

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

These appeals are directed against judgment and order  

dated 8.11.2006 passed by the High Court  of  Punjab and  

Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 1746-SB/2005 whereby the  

appeal of Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora has been dismissed, thereby  

affirming conviction recorded by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala  

in  Sessions Case No. 18 of 2003 under Sections 395, 450  

and  342  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (IPC).  However,  the

Page 2

Page 2 of 11

sentence has been reduced by the High Court from 10 years  

imprisonment to 3 years imprisonment with enhancement in  

the quantum of fine from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- under  

Section  395  IPC,  and  from  imprisonment  of  7  years  to  

imprisonment  of  3  years  with  enhancement  of  fine  from  

Rs.1000/-to  Rs.  20,000/-under  Section  450  IPC,  without  

interfering in the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial  

court in respect of offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.

2. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

perused the papers on record.

3. Prosecution  story,  in  brief,  is  that  appellant  Sanjiv  

Kumar  @ Gora  was  posted  as  Assistant  Sub  Inspector  at  

Police Station, City Phagwara.  On 23.02.2002 at about 7.30  

p.m., he along with some others committed trespass in the  

premises of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd., and committed  

robbery  of  Indian  Currency  of  Rs.6,64,576/-  and  foreign  

currency  of  value  of  Rs.13,44,500/-.   PW-1  Sukhraj  Singh  

(complainant) was wrongfully confined, showing recovery of  

Rs.10,09,076/-  of  Indian  and  Foreign  exchange  recovered

Page 3

Page 3 of 11

from  him,  and  FIR  No.  19  dated  23.02.2002  was  lodged  

against  him relating to  offence punishable  under  Sections  

411 and 414 IPC and under Section 3(B) and 3(C) of Foreign  

Exchange  Management  Act  at  the  police  station.   On  

investigation, the said case filed against PW 1 Sukhraj Singh,  

Director of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd., was found to be  

false, and the FIR was cancelled.  Complainant (PW1) Sukhraj  

Singh lodged a complaint with Deputy Inspector General of  

Police (Internal Vigilance Cell), Chandigarh, alleging as to the  

manner robbery was committed from premises of the above  

firm,  and  the  amount  of  Indian  and  foreign  currency,  as  

mentioned  above,  was  taken  away  even  though  the  

aforesaid firm M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd. had a licence  

from Reserve Bank of India valid up to 28.05.2002 for sale  

and purchase of foreign currency.  On the complaint of PW 1  

Sukhraj Singh, enquiry was conducted, and thereafter First  

Information  Report  No.  147  (Ex.PB/1)  was  registered  on  

10.10.2002 against the appellant Sanjiv Kumar and he was  

arrested on 22.02.2003.  After investigation, sanction (Ex.PF)  

for  prosecution  was  sought  and  chargesheet  was  filed

Page 4

Page 4 of 11

against him in respect of offences punishable under Sections  

450,395 and 342 IPC.

4. It  appears  that  necessary  copies  were  given  to  the  

accused and the case was committed by the Magistrate to  

the Court of Sessions for trial.  The trial court, after hearing  

the  parties,  framed  charge  of  offences  punishable  under  

Sections  450,  395  and  342  IPC  against  accused  Sanjiv  

Kumar,  to  which he pleaded not  guilty and claimed to be  

tried.   

5. On this, prosecution got examined,  PW-1 Sukhraj Singh  

(Complainant),  PW-2  Satwant  Singh  (neighbouring  

shopkeeper), PW-3 Gurdayal Singh, who proved sanction of  

prosecution, PW-4 Rajinder Singh, PW-5 Kartar Singh, PW-6  

Gurwinder  Singh,  PW-7  Darshan  Lal  (Accountant  of  M/s.  

Wadhawan  Forex  (P)  Ltd.),  PW-8  Surinder  Singh  Atwal,  

(Superintendent of Police, who enquired into the matter on  

the complaint of Sukhraj Singh), and PW-9 S.I. Amrik Singh  

(who inspected the crime).

Page 5

Page 5 of 11

6. In reply to oral and documentary evidence put to him  

under Section 313 Cr.P.C,   accused Sanjiv  Kumar pleaded  

that  he  acted  under  instructions  of  Station  House  Officer  

Inspector  Gurmej  Singh.  He  pleaded  that  at  ‘naka’  on  

Hoshiyarpur  Road,  Phagwara,  the  team  of  Police  men  

intercepted  a   Maruti  Car  from  which  Indian  and  foreign  

currency was recovered, on the basis of which FIR No. 19  

dated 23.2.2002 was lodged against Sukhraj Singh, who was  

arrested for said offence.  Appellant Sanjiv Kumar also took  

the plea that Additional Director General of Police, Punjab,  

was  inimical  against  him.   In  defence,  the  accused  got  

examined DW-1 Inspector Gurmej Singh, DW-2 SSP Arun Pal,  

and DW-3 Reader Jaswant Singh.

7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the  

conclusion that  the First  Information Report  No.  19  dated  

23.02.2002  which  was  got  lodged,  in  respect  of  offences  

punishable  under  Sections  411 and 414 I.P.C  and Section  

3(B) and 3(C) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, against  

Sukhraj Singh, at the instance of the appellant Sanjiv Kumar,

Page 6

Page 6 of 11

was  false.   The  trial  court  believed  the  statement  of  

prosecution witnesses and found that the offence for which  

accused  Sanjiv  Kumar  was  charged,  stood  proved.  

Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced vide judgment  

and order dated 8.2.2005/11.2.2005 passed in sessions case  

no. 18 of 2003.

8. Aggrieved  by  said  judgment,  the  convict  preferred  

Criminal Appeal no. 1746-SB of 2005 before the High Court.  

The  High  Court,  after  hearing  the  parties,  affirmed  the  

conviction  of  appellant  Sanjiv  Kumar  under  Sections  395,  

450 and 342 IPC.  However, the sentence was reduced by  

the High Court,  as mentioned earlier.   Hence,  this  appeal  

(Criminal Appeal No. 1424 of 2009) through special leave.

9. Also, Sukhraj Singh (complainant) has filed connected  

criminal appeal for enhancement of the sentence awarded  

by the High Court.

10. On behalf of the appellant Sanjiv Kumar, it  is argued  

before us that Inspector Gurmej Singh, who actually lodged

Page 7

Page 7 of 11

First  Information  Report  No.  19  dated  23.2.2002  against  

Sukhraj Singh (PW1) has not been punished. It is contended  

that the appellant Sanjiv Kumar has been made scape goat.  

In  this  connection,  our  attention is  drawn to the fact that  

vide order  dated 28.4.2009 in Criminal  Appeal  No.  992 of  

2009 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6705 of 2006 Gurmej Singh  

vs. State of Punjab & Anr), this Court has already granted  

relief  to him,  as such the conviction recorded against the  

present appellant Sanjiv Kumar cannot be sustained.   

11. We have carefully  gone through the order  passed in  

Criminal Appeal No. 992 of 2009.  What has been held in  

said appeal,  filed by Gurmej Singh,  is that the High Court  

erred in law in issuing directions while hearing the appeal of  

appellant  Sanjiv  Kumar,  pending  before  it,  qua  Gurmej  

Singh, without adhering to principles of natural justice.  We  

think it relevant to mention here that Gurmej Singh was not  

the  co-accused  in  the  trial,  nor  this  Court  has  made any  

observation  as  to  innocence  of  present  appellant  Sanjiv  

Kumar.  As such, the decision given in Criminal Appeal No.

Page 8

Page 8 of 11

992 of 2009 is of little help to the present appellant Sanjiv  

Kumar before us.

12. Both the Courts below, after discussing the prosecution  

evidence  as  well  as  defence  evidence  have  come  to  the  

categorical finding that PW 1 Sukhraj Singh was wrongfully  

arrested after the Indian and foreign currency was robbed by  

the appellant Sanjiv Kumar, who came with fire arm in the  

shop and premises of  M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd., and out  

of the robbed sum, part of it was falsely shown recovered  

from Sukhraj Singh by ‘naka’ party of police officers.  The  

case registered against Sukhraj Singh was found false after  

the senior police officer, who held enquiry on the complaint  

of PW-1 Sukhraj Singh.  It is relevant to mention here that  

after  investigation,  no  charge  sheet  was  filed  against  

complainant  Sukhraj  Singh (PW-1).   We have perused the  

evidence of prosecution witnesses, which include that of the  

neighbouring shopkeepers, in the light of the report dated  

8.7.2002  of  Sub  Divisional  Judicial  Magistrate,  Phagwara  

(copy of which is annexed as annexure P-5) to the appeal

Page 9

Page 9 of 11

filed by Sanjiv Kumar.  We have also considered the fact that  

the foreign currency consisting Euros 1850, Pounds U.K. 150,  

Canadian Dollars 500, Australian Dollars 500 and U.S. Dollars  

895 shown to have been recovered from Sukhraj Singh were  

actually validly held by him with other currencies as he had  

a  valid  licence,  to  deal  with  foreign  exchange,  issued  by  

Reserve Bank of India.

13. Having re-assessed the entire evidence on record, we  

do  not  find  any  illegality  committed  by  the  trial  court  in  

convicting  the  accused  Sanjiv  Kumar  under  Sections  395,  

450 and 342 IPC, which is rightly affirmed, with modification  

of sentence, by the High Court.

14. Next,  learned counsel  for  the appellant  Sanjiv  Kumar  

drew  our  attention  to  the  case   of  C.  Muniappan  and  

others vs.  State of Tamil Nadu1 and it is submitted that  

since more than 10 years have passed after the incident as  

such the sentence against the appellant should be further  

reduced to the period already undergone.  However, above  

submission is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel  1 (2010) 9 SCC 567

Page 10

Page 10 of 11

for the complainant, who relied upon the principle of law laid  

down by this Court in the case of Shyam Narain vs. State  

(NCT of Delhi)2.

15. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  of  the  

parties,  and  we  are  of  the  view  that  sentencing  for  any  

offence  has  a  social  goal.   In  each  case,  facts  and  

circumstances of that case are always required to be taken  

into  consideration.   For  the  purpose  of  just  and  proper  

punishment, not only the accused must be made to realize  

that the crime was committed by him, but there should be  

proportionality  between  the  offence  committed  and  the  

penalty imposed.  It is obligatory on the part of the Court to  

keep in mind the impact of the offence on the society, and  

its ramifications including the repercussion on the victim.

16. Therefore, for the reasons, as discussed above, we are  

not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by  

the High Court.  Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.

………………….....…………J. 2  (2013) 7 SCC 77

Page 11

Page 11 of 11

       [Dipak Misra]

     .………………….……………J.              [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi; March 19, 2015.