NISAR AHMED Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 5 Criminal Revisions No.37/2011,86/2011,90/2011, 91/2011 and 92/2011 filed by the same petitioner Nisar Ahmed s/o Ali Mohammad against judgments passed by the same Judge in a series of transactions which are connected to each other and judgment passed in this petition shall govern all the other petitions.

(2.) THE petitioner Nisar Ahmed is aggrieved by the judgments of conviction passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeals No.201/10, 202/10, 203/10, 204/10 and 205/10 passed by the Sessions and Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rajgarh, Biaora convicting the accused in all the petitions for offences which are mentioned as under :

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that although Ex.P-5 was the written complaint filed by the complainant RTO Brij Narayan Sharma (PW1); it is full of discrepancies and there are material omissions and contradictions in his testimony. He urged that in all, 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution; however none of them have supported the prosecution case but the trial Court however has convicted the accused on the sole basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert that it was Nisar who had committed the forgery in the challan Ex.P-2. Counsel more vehemently urged that the specimen signatures of the petitioner were taken in prison without obtaining proper permission from the Magistrate as is required under the provisions of law. Counsel stated that under sections 4 and 5 of the identification of Prisoners Act 1920, although there should be no possibility of fabrication of evidence and to dispel any suspicion. Counsel relied on Mohd. Aman and another v. State of Rajasthan [(1997)10 SCC 44], whereby the Court held that in such an instance case serious doubt on the circumstances surrounding the prosecution hence counsel prayed that the conviction be set aside. Moreover, one of the panch witnesses of seizure has not been examined whereas the other has turned hostile. The very fact that 5 cases were lodged by the prosecution against the accused on the same day itself was indicative of the fact that the petitioner was victimised by the respondents. Counsel stressed the fact that the material witness B.L. Sharma (PW1) the complainant was not reliable witness. Similarly Shafiq Khan (PW9) who was the driver and manager of the accused Bhagwan Das Sahu has categorically stated along with Zabir (PW10) another driver that Nisar, the present accused petitioner; was merely an agent who had been granted the money for payment of the tax of the buses owned by Bhagwan Das Sahu.