Crl. Rev. P. No. 8 of 2010. Case: Shri Robeth Rai, S/o Shri Bir Bahadur Rai Vs State of Sikkim through the Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim. Sikkim High Court
| Case Number | Crl. Rev. P. No. 8 of 2010 |
| Judges | S.P. Wangdi, Actg. C.J. |
| Issue | Criminal Law |
| Judgement Date | April 29, 2011 |
| Court | Sikkim High Court |
Judgment:
S.P. Wangdi, Actg. C.J., (At Gangtok)
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23-09-2010 of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division - I, Sikkim at Gangtok, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned judgment").
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18-11-2005, the Ranipool Police Station received a written FIR from one Shri S.B. Rai, Manager (Finance & Administration) of Sikkim Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited, a Government of Sikkim Undertaking, Gangtok (hereinafter referred to as the "SABCCO") stating that one Robeth Rai, S/o Shri Bir Bahadur Rai, Peon of the SABCCO (Petitioner herein) obtained a loan from UCO Bank, Ranipool Branch, East Sikkim, by forging his signature on a departmental undertaking. Based on this information, Ranipool Police Station Case No. 23(11)05 dated 18-11-2005 under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered against the Petitioner for investigation. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner under Sections 420/468/471 IPC with a supplementary charge sheet subsequently filed on receipt of the expert opinion of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Directorate of Forensic Sciences, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Kolkata. The trial of the case registered as General Register Case No. 4 of 2006, was held before the learned Judicial Magistrate, East & North Sikkim at Gangtok. On completion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate held the Petitioner to be guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. Against this, an appeal was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division - I, Sikkim at Gangtok being Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2010 and by the impugned judgment of the said Court dated 23-09-2010 upheld the conviction and sentence of the learned Judicial Magistrate.
3. In the revision petition, the Petitioner has raised the same questions that were raised in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division - I.
4. Heard.
5. Mr. K.T. Bhutia, learned senior counsel who represented the Petitioner while pressing the revision petition primarily urged the following grounds:
(i) That there was an inordinate delay in filing the FIR by the complainant who deposed as PW1, as it was filed 7 (seven) days after the alleged offence and that although in his evidence the complainant, PW1, while explaining the delay, had stated that there was a departmental enquiry which took 4 days, yet the FIR was lodged only 3 (three) days after completion of the enquiry.
(ii) That no permission from the superior authority was sought for by the complainant, PW1, before doing so against the Petitioner as was necessary being an employee under SABCCO and subordinate to him.
(iii) That there was no case of forgery made out against the Petitioner from the fact that other than the denial of the complainant, PW1, the signature appearing on the questioned salary certificate, Exhibit 2, and the inconclusive opinion of the GEQD on the signature, there was no other evidence.
(iv) That the prosecution had failed to establish that the Petitioner obtained loan from the UCO Bank, Ranipool Branch.
(v) That the Appellate Court erroneously relied upon Exhibits 10, 11, 12 and 13 by holding they were signed by the Petitioner without those signatures being indentified.
(vi) That none from the firm, M/s. Mother Queen Electronics of Ranipool Bazar with whom the UCO Bank had a tie up, had been examined as witness as the evidence of such witness was essential to establish the fact that it was the Petitioner who had obtained the loan by submitting the questioned document, Exhibit 2.
(vii) That the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on the basis of which the recovery of the questioned document were made, was of no effect, redundant and irrelevant as the complainant, PW1, was already aware of the fact that the documents including the questioned document, Exhibit 2, were lying with the UCO Bank.
(viii) That the complainant, S. B. Rai, PW1, was an interested person keen to secure conviction of the Petitioner which is evident from the fact that he had initially rushed to lodge an FIR against the Petitioner who was an employee under him without seeking necessary approval of the superiors and in justifying the delay in filing the subsequent FIR.
6. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhutia, learned senior counsel, relied upon various portions of the evidence available on the records which shall be dealt with later so far as they are relevant in the disposal of this petition.
7. Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, this Court ought not to interfere considering the limited powers in its revisional jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the Additional Public Prosecutor cited the following decisions:
1. Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330,
2. Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2008) 11 SCC 76; and
3. Hydru v. State of Kerala: (2004)13 SCC 374.
8. It was submitted that there were categorical and consistent findings of both the Courts below that the Petitioner had committed the offence of forgery of the questioned document and had used the same for obtaining the loan from UCO Bank. That the Petitioner had resorted to committing further forgery of two more documents, namely, Exhibit 3, being the salary certificate of Sanjeep Rasaily purportedly working in SABCCO and Exhibit 4 being the certificate certifying that the said Sanjeep Rasaily is a permanent employee of SABCCO and that there was no objection of him standing as guarantor for the Petitioner. As per the learned Additional Public Prosecutor those had been forged to justify the salary certificate Exhibit 2 being the principle document that had been forged by him to obtain the loan from the UCO Bank. That Sanjeep Rasaily was a fictitious person created by the Petitioner and that the questioned documents had been seized on their discovery being made consequent to the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial