Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5681 of 2011)

SURESH HINGORANI … Appellant

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA … Respondent

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. This  appeal,  by  special  leave,  is  directed  against  

judgment and order dated 19/01/2010 passed by the High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Revision No.162 of  

2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by  

the appellant.

Page 2

3. The appellant was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First  

Class, Faridabad for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468  

and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). By  

order  dated  23/3/2007,  learned  Magistrate  convicted  the  

appellant under Section 419 of the IPC and sentenced him to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine  

of Rs.2,000/-.  In default of payment of fine, he was directed  

to  undergo  simple  imprisonment  for  one  month.    The  

appellant was further convicted under Section 467 of the IPC  

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three  

years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-.  In default of payment of  

fine,  he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for  

one month.  The substantive sentences were ordered to run  

concurrently.    The  appellant  was  acquitted  of  offences  

under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

4. The  appellant  challenged  the  said  order  before  the  

Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Faridabad.   Learned  Sessions  

Judge  by  his  order  dated  10/11/2009  confirmed  the  

conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.  Being

Page 3

aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant  

filed a criminal revision in the Punjab & Haryana High Court.  

By the impugned judgment,  the High Court dismissed the  

revision.  Hence, this appeal.  

5. According  to  the  prosecution,  one  Kewal  Krishan  

Loomba  lodged  a  complaint  with  the  Police  Station  NIT  

Faridabad on 1/5/1997 stating that the appellant personated  

as Kewal Krishan Loomba and executed two sale deeds one  

dated 14/8/1996 (Ex. PW6/A) and another dated 19/9/1996  

(Ex. PW5/A) in respect of land belonging to him situate at  

Village Anangpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad in favour of  

one Gurdarshan Singh.  According to Kewal Krishan Loomba,  

he came to know about this forgery and impersonation only  

when Gurdarshan Singh filed written statement in the court  

of  Civil  Judge,  Faridabad  on  26/2/1997  setting  out  these  

facts.   Kewal  Krishan  Loomba  further  alleged  that  the  

appellant  along with the said Gurdarshan Singh,  Advocate  

D.P. Singh Tomar and Advocate Rajinder Singh and others

Page 4

conspired and dishonestly executed these two sale deeds in  

favour of Gurdarshan Singh.   

6. To  prove  its  case,  the  prosecution  examined  10  

witnesses.  PW-4 S.I. Dharampal took possession of the two  

sale deeds and affidavits from Gurdarshan Singh.  He stated  

that the appellant refused to participate in the identification  

parade.  PW-5 Advocate Virender Pratap Tomar stated that  

on  19/9/1996,  a  sale  deed  was  executed  by  one  Kewal  

Krishan  Loomba  before  the  Sub-Registrar  in  favour  of  

Gurdarshan Singh.  He identified the appellant in the court  

as the same person, who executed the said sale deed by  

posing as Kewal Krishan Loomba.  PW-6 Advocate Rajinder  

Singh  stated  that  on  14/8/1996,  a  sale  deed  vide  Vasika  

No.6265  dated  14/8/1996  was  registered  by  one  Kewal  

Krishan in  favour  of  Gurdarshan Singh.  He stated that  he  

signed  on  the  said  sale  deed  as  attesting  witness.   He  

identified  the  appellant  in  the  court  as  the  person,  who  

posed as Kewal Krishan.  PW-9 Anjit Singh s/o. Gurdarshan  

Singh stated that he has signed as attesting witness on both

Page 5

the  sale  deeds.   He  identified  his  signatures  on  the  sale  

deeds.  He stated that the appellant posing as Kewal Krishan  

executed those sale deeds in favour of Gurdarshan Singh.  

He stated that the sale consideration was Rs.80,000/- and  

Rs.95,000/-.   PW-8  Gurdarshan  Singh  confirmed  that  he  

purchased the lands in question vide sale deeds (Ex. PW-5/A  

and Ex. PW-6/A) from one Kewal Krishan for consideration of  

Rs.80,000/-  and  Rs.95,000/-  respectively  by  cheques.   He  

identified the appellant as the same person who posed as  

Kewal Krishan and executed the sale deeds.  

7. PW-10 Om Prakash stated that he is employed at BSOI,  

Dhaula  Kuan.   He  stated  that  the  appellant  and  Kewal  

Krishan are known to him.  He stated that they wanted to  

open a bank account and on request of the appellant,  he  

introduced him to Indian Overseas Bank, Delhi Cantt. Branch  

and signed on a bank account opening form.  He stated that  

the  account  opening  form  bears  his  signature  and  the  

signature and photo of the appellant.  The prosecution has  

placed on record FSL Report (Ex-PX) which states that the

Page 6

specimen signatures of Kewal Krishan marked as S1 to S6  

and specimen signatures of the appellant marked as S7 to  

S10 were compared with signatures Q1 to Q7 on registered  

sale deed dated 19/9/1996,  Q8 to Q15 on registered sale  

deed dated 14/8/1996, Q16 to Q19 on specimen signature  

cards  of  Indian Overseas Bank,  Q17 and Q18 on affidavit  

dated 14/8/1996 and Q20 to Q24 on account opening form of  

Indian Overseas Bank dated 21/8/1996.  The report states  

that  after  comparing  Q1  to  Q24  with  the  specimen  

signatures of Kewal Krishan as well as the appellant i.e. S1 to  

S6 and S7 to S10, it is found that the signatures S1 to S6  

given by Kewal Krishan did not match with the signatures Q1  

to  Q24  on  registered  sale  deeds  dated  14/8/1996  and  

19/9/1996,  affidavit  dated  14/8/1996,  specimen  signature  

cards  and account  opening form of  Indian Overseas Bank  

dated  21/8/1996.   The  report  further  states  that  the  

specimen signatures S7 to S10 of the appellant are similar to  

Q1 to Q24 found on the documents Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-

6/A i.e. sale deeds dated 19/9/1996 and 14/8/1996, affidavit

Page 7

dated 14/8/1996 accounting opening form dated 21/8/1996  

and specimen signature cards of the Indian Overseas Bank.   

8. PW-3 Khem Chand duly proved the registration of sale  

deeds Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-6/A.  PW-5 Advocate Virender  

Pratap Tomar and PW-9 Anjit Singh the attesting witnesses  

of  sale  deed  dated  19/9/1996  stated  that  the  appellant  

posed  as  Kewal  Krishan  and  executed  the  sale  deeds  in  

question after signing them as Kewal Krishan.  Similarly, the  

attesting witnesses PW-6 Advocate Rajinder Singh and PW-9  

Anjit Singh stated that the appellant signed as Kewal Krishan  

and executed the sale deed dated 14/8/1996.  The evidence  

of PW-7 U.D. Sharma and PW-10 Om Prakash establish that  

the  appellant  opened  Saving  Bank  A/c.  No.16206  in  the  

name of Kewal Krishan and signed the account opening form  

and specimen signature cards as Kewal Krishan.  The sale  

deeds (Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-6/A) bearing the photographs  

of  the  appellant  were  signed  by  the  appellant  as  Kewal  

Krishan.   This  is  duly  proved  by  the  evidence  of  PW-5  

Virender Pratap Tomar, PW-6 Advocate Rajinder Singh, PW-9  

Anjit Singh and FSL Report (Ex-PX).  

Page 8

9. Learned counsel for the appellant laid much emphasis  

on the fact that the complainant was not examined by the  

prosecution.   He  submitted  that  therefore,  the  entire  

prosecution story is suspect.  In the facts of this case, we are  

unable  to  accept  this  submission.   It  is  true  that  the  

complainant  ought  to  have  been  examined  by  the  

prosecution.  But because the complainant is not examined,  

we have meticulously gone through the evidence.  We find  

that  the  prosecution  witnesses  have  established  the  

prosecution  case  to  the  hilt.   The  FSL  Report  completely  

bears  out  the  prosecution  case.   Learned counsel  for  the  

appellant  pointed  out  that  the  prosecution  ought  to  have  

tried Col. Kochar along with the appellant or it should have  

at least cited him as a witness because PW-8 Gurdarshan  

Singh has stated that Col. Kochar introduced the appellant to  

him.  Since the evidence on record clearly  brings out  the  

involvement of the appellant, we refrain from going into the  

alleged  involvement  of  Col.  Kochar.   From  the  evidence  

adduced  by  the  prosecution,  the  inescapable  conclusion

Page 9

which  must  arise  is  that  the  appellant  posed  as  Kewal  

Krishan and executed the sale deeds in favour of Gurdarshan  

Singh.   It  was  further  urged  by  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant that there is nothing on record to indicate that the  

appellant  has  received  any  consideration.   There  is  no  

evidence on record to suggest that the cheques in the sums  

of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.95,000/- were, in fact, encashed.  It is  

true that there is nothing to indicate that the complainant  

suffered  any  loss  or  that  the  appellant  received  any  

monetary benefit.  But then, Section 467 of the IPC does not  

require  the  prosecution  to  prove  that  the  accused,  who  

commits  forgery,  has  benefited  thereby  or  any  loss  has  

occasioned  to  anyone  thereby.  This  argument  must,  

therefore, fail.   

10. In our opinion the prosecution has established beyond  

reasonable doubt that the appellant cheated by personating  

as Kewal Krishan and he forged two sale deeds.  The courts  

below  have  correctly  appreciated  the  evidence  and  after  

holding  the  appellant  guilty  of  offences  punishable  under

Page 10

Sections 419 and 467 of the IPC, sentenced him as aforesaid.  

The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below do not  

call for any interference as there is no perversity attached to  

them.  

11. Learned counsel  for  the appellant  submitted that  the  

appellant has undergone imprisonment for 20 months.  He is  

about 59 years of age and is suffering from osteoarthritis.  

The affidavit of the appellant along with the medical report is  

on  record.   Counsel  pointed  out  that  the  appellant  has  

suffered a fracture in the distal femur while in custody and  

his left limb has been shortened by 1½ cm due to operation.  

He has also suffered a firearm injury in his left knee.  The  

medical record shows that his condition is worsening due to  

advancing osteoarthritis changes.  Counsel urged that in the  

circumstances,  this  court  may  take  a  kindly  view  of  the  

matter.  He submitted that the sentence already undergone  

by the appellant may be treated as sentence for the offences  

for which he has been convicted.

Page 11

12. Though  we  are  of  the  confirmed  opinion  that  the  

appellant  has  rightly  been  convicted  for  offences  under  

Sections  419  and  467  of  the  IPC,  having  perused  the  

appellant’s affidavit and medical papers, which are annexed  

to  it,  we  are  of  opinion  that  in  the  peculiar  facts  and  

circumstances of the case so far as sentence is concerned,  

his case deserves to be dealt with sympathetically.  We have  

also  taken  note  of  the  fact  that  the  complainant  is  not  

interested  in  prosecuting  the  case  and  that  neither  the  

appellant  has  received  any  monetary  benefit  nor  PW-8  

Gurdarshan  Singh  has  suffered  any  loss.   Though  in  law,  

these  circumstances  will  not  help  the  appellant,  for  the  

purposes  of  considering  the  aspect  of  sentence  in  the  

peculiar  facts  of  this  case,  these  would  be  mitigating  

circumstances.   The  offence,  however,  is  grave  and,  

therefore,  while  treating  sentence  undergone  by  the  

appellant  as  sentence  for  the  offences  for  which  he  is  

convicted, we deem it appropriate to impose on him a fine of  

Rs.50,000/-.  Hence, the following order:

Page 12

13. The  conviction  of  the  appellant  for  offences  under  

Sections 419 and 467 of the IPC is confirmed.  The appellant  

has so far spent 20 months in jail.  In the facts of the case  

the  period  already  undergone  by  him  is  directed  to  be  

treated as sentence for the offences under Section 419 and  

467 of the IPC.  The order of sentence is modified to this  

extent.  In addition, the appellant is directed to pay a fine of  

Rs.50,000/-.   The  appellant  shall  deposit  the  fine  amount  

with the Registrar General of Punjab & Haryana High Court.  

Such deposit  shall  be made within a period of one month  

from today.  The appellant is on bail. On such deposit being  

made,  the  appellant's  bail  bond  shall  stand  discharged.  

Needless to say that if the appellant does not deposit the  

said amount as directed, the bail bond of the appellant shall  

stand cancelled and he shall be taken in custody to serve out  

the remaining sentence as per the impugned order.  

14. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.  

……………………………………………..J. (AFTAB ALAM)

Page 13

……………………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 10, 2013.