SURESH HINGORANI Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000079-000079 / 2013
Diary number: 21374 / 2011
Advocates: HINGORANI & ASSOCIATES Vs
KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA
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.