HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a somewhat usual application filed under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code by Hoshiar Singh in the following circumstances. As a result of a report officially lodged with the police on behalf of the Punjab University the petitioner was prosecuted along with two other persons, one being Mulk Raj a former clerk employed by the Punjab University, and the other being Vishnu Dutt, the head of the institution known as Gandhi Mahavidayala at Rohtak at which Hoshiar Singh was a student. Briefly the basis of the case was that Hoshiar Singh had used a forged result intimation card of the Punjab University for the purpose of obtaining a B. A., degree, and he was charged on this account under Section 465/471, I. P. C. Mulkh Raj was charged with the offence of forging the document in question and Vishnu Dutta was charged with abetment of the offence of forgery.

(2.) The investigation and trial apparently took a long time and the case was only decided in March 1956 by a Magistrate at Delhi, who convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment, but acquitted the other two accused on the ground that the offences alleged against them were not conclusively established, although according to the petitioner, there were other cases of the similar nature pending against them in other courts.

(3.) The petitioner appealed but the only result of his appeal which was decided by an Additional Sessions Judge at Delhi, was that his sentence was reduced to nine months' Rule 1. The petitioner then filed a revision petition in the High Court which came before Kapur J. on the 28th of May 1956. After hearing the petitioner Kapur J. summarily dismissed his revision petition, and at the same time ordered notice to be issued to the two accused who had been acquitted by the trial Court to show cause why the order for their acquittal should not be set aside. The case arising out of this order was heard by Chopra J. on the 2nd of April, 1957 when he discharged the rule, holding that although the document in question may have been forged there was no conclusive proof that Mulkh Raj was the forger. He also held that since the prosecution had failed to prove the principal offence of forgery against Mulkh Raj the charge of abetment against Vishnu Dutta must ipso facto fail.