Satnam Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

Rekha Mittal, J.—The present petition lays challenge to conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners by the Courts below as extracted hereinbelow:-

Satnam Singh

Tirath Singh

Briefly stated, a written complaint dated 1.6.1999 was made by Bhupinder Pal, Nazir in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, on the allegations that on 1.6.1999, he was sitting in his office and doing his official work. At about 3-00 p.m., two persons came to him and said that they had brought summons from Sessions Court, Sangrur and they wanted to get the service effected upon a party. On the asking of the complainant, those persons got an application allowed from the Court concerned and came back to the complainant. They were Tirath Singh and his son Satnam Singh, revision petitioners before this Court. The summons were got served through the process servers deputed for the purpose. At about 4.30 p.m., the summons were handed over to Tirath Singh after obtaining his signatures. Satnam Singh came to the office of the complainant, enquired from his father about the summons and when he learnt that Nazir had obtained signatures of his father, he got enraged and remarked, why the complainant has obtained signatures of his father. Satnam Singh, snatched application from the complainant, tore it off and abused in the name of his mother and sister. He (Satnam Singh) physically assaulted him and tore off his shirt. The accused gave threats of eliminating the complainant and during scuffle threw the registers lying on the table. The complainant was rescued by the other officials present in the room namely, Swarnjit Singh and Jatinder Kumar.

The application submitted by complainant Bhupinder Pal was forwarded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala which led to registration of FIR No. 141 dated 2.6.1999 for offence under Sections 323/ 353/ 504/ 506/ 34 IPC at Police Station, Barnala.

The petitioners were convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala, for the aforesaid offences and were sentenced accordingly. The judgment passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate was affirmed in appeal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala.

The sole contention raised by counsel for the petitioners is that Tirath Singh submitted an application (Annexure P-1) to the then Administrative Judge, Sangrur (exhibited during trial in defence) expressing his grievance against the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, as a complaint case filed by Tirath Singh was pending trial before the said Court. The petitioners submitted the application on 21.5.1999 and the present FIR was got lodged by one of the officials attached to the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala as a counter blast to the complaint made by Tirath Singh against the Judicial Magistrate.

Counsel for the State has supported the judgments of the Courts below with the submission that these are based upon correct appreciation of evidence led on record. The complainant has supported the prosecution version and his testimony could not be shaken during lengthy cross examination. It is further submitted that it has not been proved on record that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala ever gained knowledge of any complaint submitted by Tirath Singh to the then Administrative Judge, Barnala much less any explanation was sought from the officer or any action was taken against him. The last submission made by counsel is that the petitioners have not denied the fact of their having approached Nazir of the Court in connection with service of summons, allowing of their application by the Judicial officer for service of summons, the summons being served on the person concerned within a short period, which are sufficient to falsify and belie the plea of the petitioners that they have been falsely indicted in the crime.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone though the records and judgments passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court.

The petitioners have failed to adduce any evidence that the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala had any grievance against them. There is nothing on record to suggest that Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala ever had any intimation with regard to the complainant''s having submitted an application to the then Administrative Judge. A perusal of Annexure P-1 shows that there is some grievance against the judicial officer namely G.S. Sra but this is not the plea of the petitioners that Shri G.S. Sra was the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala at the relevant time. This apart, it is difficult to believe that a judicial officer can incur the risk of getting a false criminal case lodged against a person as a measure of vengeance and that too for the reason that said person has complained against his conduct. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Both the Courts have recorded consistent findings of fact holding the petitioners guilty of offence charged against them. There is nothing on record to suggest that the judgments passed by the Courts below suffer from any error much less illegality or perversity or these are based upon misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. I do not find any reason as would call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences is affirmed.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case was registered more than 10 years ago and the petitioners have already suffered sufficiently for their conduct. He has prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone by them or they may be extended the benefit of probation.

I have examined the prayer of the petitioners. Petitioner-Tirath Singh is more than 80 years of age as in the charge-sheet, he is recorded as 80 years of age and by this time he would be about 90 years old. A perusal of the allegations in the FIR and statement of complainant Bhupinder Pal would reveal that no overt act has been attributed to Tirath Singh. Tirath Singh never raised any protest with regard to obtaining his signatures in token of receipt of summons. He did not join hands with his son Satnam Singh in the alleged assault. Keeping in view his background, coupled with the factum that Tirath Singh has suffered the pangs of investigation, trial and proceedings before the appellate Court for the last about 14 years, he is ordered to be released by extending him benefit of probation, on his furnishing probation, bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala with an undertaking to keep peace and exhibit good conduct failing which, to appear before the said Court to receive sentence as and when called upon to do so within a period of two years. However, the sentence awarded to Satnam Singh for offence u/s 353 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of with modification in the aforesaid terms.