INDER SINGH AND ORS. Vs. C.B.I.
LAWS(UTN)-2013-10-46
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 23,2013

Inder Singh And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
C.B.I. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) CONSEQUENT upon an F.I.R. lodged against the accused persons, a charge -sheet was submitted against them, for the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Cognizance was taken and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offences. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charges against accused -appellants were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Accused -appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. PW 1 Subedar S.K. Sharma, PW 2 S.N. Yadav, PW 3 Dinesh Chandra, PW 4 K.K. Ahuja, PW 5 T.S. Sisodiya, PW 6 M.S. Bisht, PW 7 Vijay Chawra, PW 8 Suresh Chandra Gupta, PW 9 Mahavir Singh Mahalawat, PW 10 Paramjeet Singh Grower and PW 11 Lieutenant Colonel Kaushal Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They proved documents from Ex. Ka -1 to Ex. Ka -44. The FIR was lodged by the Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.), R.D. Singh on 30.06.1993.
(2.) WHEN the prosecution evidence was concluded, the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused persons confessed their guilt and admitted the prosecution story to be true, on their own volition.
(3.) A perusal of the order -sheets of learned trial court indicates that the accused persons moved an application (paper No. 91 ka) on 12.07.2000 for confessing their guilt. They were explained by learned court below that they were not bound to make a confession and if they do so, they may be convicted for the offences complained of against them. Whereas the application for confessing their guilt was moved by the accused persons on 12.07.2000, their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 18.08.2000 i.e. after about a month of their willingness to confess their guilt. It is indicated by learned trial court in it's order dated 18.08.2000 that the accused persons were explained the consequences of their confessing the guilt, on the day when the application regarding confession of guilt was moved, as well as the day when their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned trial court, vide order dated 18.08.2000, convicted the accused persons for the offences for which they were charged. After hearing the accused persons on the point of sentence, they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and were also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakh each in favour of C.D.A. (C.C.) within six months. Such order was passed by the learned trial court under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, a criminal appeal bearing No. 53/2008 was preferred by the accused persons before the Special Judge (C.B.I./Anti -Corruption), Dehradun, who, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the criminal appeal, but reduced the sentence from three months rigorous imprisonment to one month's rigorous imprisonment. A plea was raised before the Special Judge (C.B.I./Anti -Corruption), Dehradun to award them imprisonment for the period already undergone by them, but the Special Judge (C.B.I./Anti -Corruption), Dehradun/appellate court declined the same citing reason that the accused -appellants remained in jail only for 3 -4 days. The appellate court gave a finding that it would not be appropriate to award sentence to the accused persons for the period already undergone by them. The said judgment was delivered by the appellate court on 27.06.2002.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.