Mal Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Singh J.

We propose to dispose of together the connected 26 Crl. Revision Petitions Nos. 917 to 942 or 1991, as similar point for consideration is involved in all of them.

The material facts to be considered in the disposal of these petitions are that the petitioners Mal Singh, Surjit Singh, Baghera Singh, Jaggar Singh and Tarsem Lal had forged 26 excise permits purporting to have been issued on different dates by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Bhatinda, and they drew liquor on them from Hamira Distillery on various occasions. On detection of the crime twentysix cases were registered by the Police, each relating to one permit. The learned trial Court held a joint trial in all the 26 cases which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the petitioners in all of them. Surjit Singh was convicted under sections 467, 469 and 120B Indian Penal Code. In each case, he was sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, on each count. The remaining four accused were convicted under sections 120B, 467/120B, and 468/120B, Indian Penal Code, in all the cases and similar sentences was imposed upon them on each count in every case. It was, however, ordered that sentences of imprisonment of the accused shall run concurrently in each cases as well as in all 26 cases.

Against the convictions end sentences aforementioned, appeals were filed by the petitioners which were heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. He found that only in one case, out of which Criminal Revision No. 917 of 1981 has arisen, all the five accused had been challaned together. In the other cases only some of them were challaned. In the case from which Criminal Revision No. 918 has arisen, only Mal Singh, Surjit Singh and Tarsem Lal were challaned. In cases relating to Criminal Revision Nos. 921, 922, 923, 926, 933 and 934 only Mal Singh, Jagir Singh and Tarsem Lal had been challaned. In the remaining cases the only petitioners challaned were Mal Singh, Surjit Singh and Baghera Singh. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, set aside the convictions and sentences of the relevant petitioners in those cases wherein they had not been challaned. Their convictions in the other cases, in which they were challaned, were mentioned. However, their sentences of imprisonment were reduced to the periods already undergo without interfering with the fine imposed. These revision petitions have been filed against the judgments of the appellate Court.

The sole point urged by the petitioners counsel is that after the joinder of trials in all the twentysix cases the petitioners should have been convicted and sentenced only once and not separately in each case. We find that contention deserves to be rejected.

It needs to be highlighted that the objection raised by the learned counsel was neither taken at the trial stage nor before the appellate Court. The judgment of the appellate Court on the contrary indicate that the petitioners had no grievance against their convictions and the only prayer made by them was with regard to reduction in sentences. This prayer was manifestly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge who reduced the sentence of the petitioners to that already undergone.

In our judgment, there is no justification to permit the petitioners to take up the above mentioned new plea at this late stage which was neither raised before the trial Court nor before the court of appeal. Moreso, when it is not even whispered that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by their being convicted and sentenced separately in each of the 26 cases.

We, therefore, find no cause to interfere with the impugned judgments of the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, and these 26 criminal revision petition are hereby dismissed.

JUDGMENT accordingly.