AMAR DUTT, J. - (1.) THROUGH the present Criminal Misc. Application complainant seeks to challenge the order dated 9.8.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat convicting the respondents under Sections 193, 196, 197, 198, 199 and 465 read with Section 120-B, IPC on the ground that the trial Court has omitted to award any punishment for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC for which the respondents had also been charged inspite of the fact that in para 36 of its judgment, the trial Court has observed in relation to the evidence produced before it in regard to these offences as under :- "36. PW2 Badan Singh SHO has deposed on oath that he has prepared report Ex. PK and as per his verification it was found that Om Parkash Kashmiri Lal Panjabi does not reside on the address 281/B, Bawa Gangapuri Road, Netaji Colony, Panipat meaning thereby that he was not a tenant of Om Parkash Chaudhary and he has given a false affidavit regarding this fact knowingly. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 joined hands with accused No. 2 while preparing the false certificates to the effect that accused No. 1 was a tenant of Om Parkash Chaudhary, accused No. 2. Later on these affidavits and certificates were produced in the judicial proceedings before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by accused No. 1 showing them as they are genuine. On perusal of all the above said sections and in the light of the facts discussed above it cannot be said that the essential ingredients of all the aforesaid sections are not fulfilled by the prosecution. Rather all the essential requirements of the aforesaid sections are proved by the prosecution through cogent and convincing evidence. There is no ground to disbelieve the report of PW2 Badan Singh SHO Ex.PK as well as his statement on oath. It is laid down in the authority Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 789 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 126 : (2003)5 Supreme Court Cases 291 that the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. While placing reliance upon this authority and in view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
(2.) IT was in view of this lapse that this Court had issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the leave to appeal be not granted and on July 7, 2005, this Court had adjourned the case on the request of learned counsel for the parties in order to enable them to address arguments on the following points :- "a) regarding the Forum before which the present Criminal Misc. Application for leave to appeal would be maintainable in view of the amendment carried out in the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 2005. b) regarding the effect of the failure of the trial Court to give decision in relation to charges framed under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code." On 29.7.2005, when it was brought to our notice that Criminal Appeals No. 24 and 26 of 2004 had been filed by the respondents to challenge the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the trial Court before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, we had also directed the Registry to summon the records of these appeals to enable us to peruse the same while dealing with the application for grant of special leave to appeal.
(3.) WE have heard Shri B.S. Rana, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr. T.P.S. Mann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. P.S. Hundal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 and perused the record with their assistance.;