(1.) By way of present revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C r/w section 401 along with section 482 Cr.P.C, a challenge has been made to the judgment dated 30.4.2011 passed by the ld.Addl. Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the judgment passed by the ld.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 19.1.2011 convicting the petitioner and sentencing him for the offences punishable u/s 193/204/419/471 IPC has been upheld.
(2.) At the outset it may be mentioned that petitioner has submitted that he has already undergone the sentence as such he is not interested in pursuing the revision petition.
(3.) Briefly the facts of the case are that a FIR under Section 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC was registered against the petitioner with the allegations that the petitioner impersonated as one Om Prakash and gave surety for one accused in FIR No.530/99 under Section 379/411 IPC, P.S. Kotwali. The said accused absconded and on notice to the surety i.e. the petitioner (who had impersonated as Om Parkash) a report was received that the address given by the surety in the surety bond was not correct. On the suspicion, the learned M.M. had sent the FDR for verification to Dena Bank from where report was received that the FDR was forged. Even the copy of ration card furnished was bogus. Accordingly, a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was preferred and pursuant thereto the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. The necessary documents were seized during the investigation. The specimen signatures, hand writing and thumb impression of petitioners were obtained and the original documents containing his signatures and handwriting were sent to CFSL along with specimen handwriting and a report was obtained. Thereupon charge-sheet was filed in the concerned court. During the trial, evidence of various witnesses were recorded. The petitioner in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C claimed that he had been falsely implicated. The trial court recorded conviction of the petitioner finding substantial evidence against him in the form of testimony of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and police officials as well as relying upon the expert opinion.