KARAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the petition is to the judgment dated 22.5.2018, whereby the judgment and order dated 2.11.2016, passed by the trial Court, convicting the petitioner under Sections 483 and 411 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year, for each offence, was upheld by dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Vide order dated 6.7.2018, notice in this case was issued only qua quantum of sentence.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that an FIR No. 76 dated 25.5.2012 was lodged under Sections 420, 483 and 411 IPC at Police Station Moonak, alleging against the present petitioner that on 25.5.2012, a police party, headed by HC Gurbhej Singh, was present in the area of Moonak, where a secret informer informed the police party that Karaj Singh-the present petitioner, indulged in sale of vehicles by forging their registration numbers, and that on that particular date, he was coming on a motor cycle of Yamha make, bearing Registration No. PB-65-P-3580 and that if a barricade is raised, then he could be apprehended. Finding the information to be worth believing, a barricade was raised. The petitioner was seen coming on a motor cycle. On seeing the police party, the petitioner tried to turn back. However, he was nabbed by the police officials. On being questioned, he disclosed his name as Karaj Singh, as was also informed by the secret informer. The petitioner was asked to show the documents regarding the ownership of the motor cycle. However, he could not give any reliable proof regarding the ownership of the said motor cycle. The motor cycle being driven by the petitioner was bearing Registration No. PB-65- P-3580. However, on verifying the details of the vehicle with reference to its chasis and engine numbers, the registration number displayed on the motor cycle was found to be assigned to one Swift Dezire car; and not to the motor cycle, which was found in possession of the petitioner. It was further alleged that during custody, the petitioner had made a disclosure statement for having in his possession one Bolero car; also with the forged registration number. On these allegations, the FIR was lodged.

(3.) The prosecution led its evidence. After appreciating the evidence brought on record, the trial Court held the petitioner guilty under Sections 411 and 483 IPC. However, the petitioner was acquitted of an offence under Section 420 IPC; since no sufficient evidence was produced by the prosecution to substantiate the offence under Section 420 IPC. Accordingly, the petitioner was sentenced by the trial Court; to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence along with default imprisonment in case of non payment of fine.