JAKARIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 01.12.2012 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal dismissing appeal filed by petitioner -accused against judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2011 and order of sentence dated 24.02.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hathin in FIR no. 44 dated 19.01.2003, under Sections 3 /12 of the Passports Act, 1967 and Sections 417 /419 IPC, police station Hathin, vide which petitioner -accused was convicted and sentenced as under: -

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of prosecution is that, on the basis of information, Sub Inspector Rajbir Singh visited house of petitioner -accused situated in village Mankaki on 19.01.2003. Petitioner -accused produced five passports out of which Passport No. A -7674734 was in the name of Zakaria son of Sube Khan, which was valid for the period from 28.06.1999 to 27.06.2009. The second passport bearing No. B -5055675 was in the name of Zakaria son of Sube Khan, which was valid from 08.02.2001 to 07.02.2011. Both these passports were issued by the Delhi Passport Authority. The remaining three passports were in the name of the father of petitioner -accused, Sube Khan son of Kallu Khan, which were valid from 17.10.1996 to 16.10.2006, 21.04.1998 to 20.04.2008 and 10.06.1999 to 09.06.2009. The same were also issued by the Delhi Passport Authority. Photographs of petitioner -accused were affixed on the two passports and photographs of father of petitioner -accused were affixed on the remaining three passports standing in his name. The passports were got issued on the basis of Ration Card, which was also tampered with. Even different dates of birth were incorporated in the passports.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of petitioner -accused that he did not want to press the present revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, is concerned and hence, notice of motion was issued qua quantum of sentence only. I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below. The same are based on evidence. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by learned courts below. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgments passed by both the courts below convicting petitioner -accused.