GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition, as claimed by the prosecution and emanating from the record, are that, petitioner-accused Gurdev Singh s/o Pala Singh was stated to have obtained the job of DPI Master in High School on the basis of false handicapped certificate. Not only that, after receiving the job, he had removed the handicapped certificate from the record, in order to cheat the department. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Sewa Singh s/o Lal Singh, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.72 dated 17.12.1999, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 201 and 204 IPC by the police of Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar.

(2.) Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the trial Court convicted & sentenced the petitioner-accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of six months for the commission of offence punishable u/s 468 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of six months under section 471 IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court, by virtue of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2007.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-accused filed the appeal. The Appellate Court observed that the entire material/evidence on record was not put to him u/s 313 Cr.PC and even the witness, who was not cross-examined, was considered against him. Hence, his appeal was accepted and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for fresh decision, by the appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 12.1.2011.