UMA NATH SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision arises out of a judgment dated 17.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in Crl.Appeal Nos. 28 of 9.11.1999, 45 of 4.11.1999 and 46 of 4.11.1999, affirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Sections 120-B IPC, 419 IPC, 420 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC and 471 IPC. However, learned appellate Court has reduced the jail sentences awarded by learned trial Court as under : Name of the accused Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed by the trial Court Sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge Tarsem Singh U/s 120-B IPC To undergo RI for four months To undergo RI for four months -do- U/s 420 IPC To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-## in default of payment of fine## to further undergo RI for six months. Sentence is reduced to one year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- is maintained in appeal## in default of payment of fine## to further undergo RI for three months. -do- U/s 468 IPC To undergo RI for 2-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-## in default## to further undergo RI for six months Sentence is reduced to one year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- under this Section is maintained## in default of payment of fine## to further undergo RI for three months -do- U/s 471 IPC To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- ## in default## to further undergo RI for six months. Sentence is reduced to one year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- is maintained## in default## to further undergo RI for three months. Rishi Pal Rana U/s 120-B IPC To undergo RI for four months Sentenced to four months RI -do- U/s 420 IPC To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine to the tune of Rs.500/-. In default## to further undergo RI for six months Sentence is reduced to one year RI## fine is maintained as Rs. 500/-## in default## to further undergo RI for three months. -do- U/s 468 IPC To undergo RI for 2-1/2 years and fine to the tune of Rs. 500/-## in default## to further undergo RI for six months. Sentence is reduced to one year RI and fine is maintained as Rs. 500/-## in default## to further undergo RI for three months. -do- U/s. 471 IPC To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine to the tune of Rs. 500/-## in default of payment of fine## to further undergo RI for six months. Sentence is reduced to one year and fine of Rs. 500/- is maintained## in default## to further undergo RI for three months. Kadam Singh U/s 120-B IPC To undergo RI for four months Sentence is maintained as RI for four months -do- U/s. 419 IPC To undergo RI for two years Sentence is reduced to one year RI. -do- U/s. 467 IPC To undergo RI for 2-1/2 years and to pay a fine to the tune of Rs. 500/-## in default## to further undergo RI for six months. Sentence is reduced to one year RI and fine is maintained## in default## to further undergo RI for three months.
(2.) AS per the prosecution case, accused-appellant Rishi Pal Rana was selected for recruitment as a Constable in Chandigarh Police. He was required to obtain a Medical Certificate from General Hospital, Chandigarh. Appellant-ASI Tarsem Singh was deputed from the Police Lines, Chandigarh to accompany Rishi Pal Rana and other recruits to the hospital to get them medically examined on 21- 03-1991. It is alleged that appellant ASI Tarsem Singh collected blank medical forms in respect of appellant-Rishi Pal Rana. Accused-appellant Rishi Pal Rana could not pass the medical test only due to defective eye-sight and he was declared medically unfit on 5.4.1991. It is also alleged that on 8.4.1991, ASI Tarsem Singh contacted constable Balwant Singh of OSI Branch and told that Rishi Pal Rana was not medically examined. ASI Tarsem Singh filled in a blank form for medical examination in his own hand in the name of accused-appellant Rishi Pal Rana and also got a despatch number from OSI Branch. At that time, constable complainant Balwant Singh was not aware of malafide intention of ASI Tarsem Singh. His suspicion was aroused when he received a medical register from the hospital within a very short span of time as, normally, medical register used to come back from hospital only after completion of medical examination of candidates after a week. Constable Balwant Singh checked the record and found that accused-appellant Rishi Pal Rana had already been medically examined and found unfit but on 10.4.1991, he, after giving different address, was medically re-examined and declared medically fit. Hence, constable Balwant Singh submitted a written complaint (Ex. PA) to Vijay Pal Singh, DSP Lines, on 20.4.1991 giving information in that regard. Another complaint dated 16.4.1991 was received from Principal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Chandigarh addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh. D.S.P. Headquarters Davinder Singh conducted enquiry and vide the enquiry report dated 14.6.1991 (Ex. PV), he found that appellant-Rishi Pal Rana had got himself medically fit by fraudulent means by sending some other person in the eye-sight test in his place who impersonated as Rishi Pal Singh Rana. He also managed to get his date of birth changed on record. He found that accused-appellant ASI Tarsem Singh helped him in that pursuit. On receipt of the Enquiry Report and legal opinion, a formal FIR was registered as Ex.P15/A on 13.8.1991. During investigation, the police came out with a theory that one accused-appellant Kadam Singh had impersonated accused-appellant Rishi Pal Rana before Dr. M.M.S. Gill on 11.4.1991. Dr. Gill had medically examined him and found his vision to be correct. During the investigation, the accused was arrested. Statement of witnesses were recorded and relevant documents were seized. On 26.8.1991, ASI Anokh Singh produced accused- appellant Kadam Singh before one Shri H.L. Chawla, Executive Magistrate for getting his specimen signatures which accused Kadam Singh refused to give. ASI Anokh Singh also produced ASI Tarsem Singh before Executive Magistrate who gave his specimen signatures and handwriting. The Investigating Officer got the handwriting compared with the admitted handwriting and signatures of ASI Tarsem Singh. On completion of investigation and other formalities, a challan was put up against the accused. After consideration of challan, the learned Trial Magistrate framed charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B IPC. The accused-appellant herein pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the conclusion of the trial, the accused were found guilty and sentenced by learned trial Court. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, while affirming the order of conviction of learned trial Court, has reduced the sentence of the accused petitioners, as discussed herein above. Assailing the judgments of the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioners-revisionists submitted that there is no direct evidence and the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Moreover, from the evidence on record, the chain of circumstances is not complete. Learned counsel submitted that after passing the physical and written tests, accused petitioner No. 3 Rishi Pal was put to medical examination but was declared unfit, as his eye sight was not found to satisfy the standard prescribed by the Medical Board. The doctor, who had declared him medically unfit, declared him fit in the re-medical examination. All the three petitioners have nothing to do with the acts of the Doctor as at the time of second medical examination, record of earlier medical examination, which contained the necessary details of the candidate, was already with the Medical Board and any fresh information furnished in the proforma of second medical examination could be verified from the earlier informations available with the doctor. As regards accused petitioner No. 1 Tarsem Singh, it has been alleged that he was posted as an ASI in Chandigarh Police at that time and the proforma for second medical examination had been filled up in his handwriting, although he was not in any manner connected with the recruitment process. It is also alleged that he had taken petitioner No. 3 along for appearance before the Medical Board in the second round of medical test but the relationship between petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 is not established, which is also supported by the defence evidence on record. According to learned counsel, though the prosecution has alleged that petitioner No. 1 Tarsem Singh had changed the date of birth of petitioner No. 3 from 18.8.1967 to 18.8.1964 but the fact remains that if this allegation is believed, petitioner No. 3 instead of being examined by the second Medical Board would have been dis-qualified on the ground of over age. According to learned counsel, at the relevant time, the age prescribed for recruitment as a Constable in Chandigarh Police, under Rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, was between 18 and 25 years, and with the change of date of birth, petitioner No. 3 would have been 27 years in age. As per prosecution evidence, petitioner No. 1 Tarsem Singh was not a part of recruitment process. The prosecution witness, who has been heavily relied upon by the courts below, is Constable Balwant Singh (PW13), who has stated that medical form was taken by ASI Tarsem Singh for re-examination of accused petitioner No. 3 Rishi Pal, but this is admitted by the prosecution that this form was freely available in the market and any one could get it from there. This is also a submission of learned counsel that petitioner No.1 Tarsem Singh was produced before an Executive Magistrate for taking his handwriting for comparison, which is not admissible in evidence being hit by Section 73 of the Evidence Act, and further, the handwriting has been compared with his hand writing in an application for leave submitted by him (petitioner No. 1 Tarsem Singh). That application has been denied by the prosecution witness, who has stated that no such application was signed in his presence. Besides, the Handwriting Expert appearing on behalf of the defence as DW4 has given a different report saying that the writing in question was not handwritten by petitioner No. 1 Tarsem Singh. According to learned counsel, DW4 was more experienced being senior to PW16 in service. This is submitted by learned counsel that DSP Devinder Singh (PW1), who was the incharge of selection process, was inimical towards petitioner No. 1 and wanted to frame him up in some case. If there were irregularities in the recruitment process conducted under the supervision of DSP Devinder Singh (PW1), the he himself should not have held an enquiry but on the contrary, he held enquiry and having not found any incriminating material against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, brought in picture petitioner No. 2 to weave a story against the accused persons that petitioner No. 2 impersonated petitioner No. 3 before the Medical Board at the instance of petitioner No. 1. Learned Courts below have believed this story little realising that before the Medical Board, the earlier form containing photograph of the candidate so also his necessary details were available and, therefore, petitioner No. 2, who had a different body structure with different height and photograph, could not have been projected as the person impersonating petitioner No. 3. Learned counsel emphasised that the DSP (PW1), who was in the helm of affairs, in order to save his own skin, himself conducted a preliminary enquiry and lodged a report against the accused petitioners. This is also a submission of learned counsel that name of petitioner No. 2 Kadam Singh was not mentioned in the FIR nor was it a subject matter of preliminary enquiry conducted by the DSP (PW1), but to fill-in the lacuna, he has been introduced to establish that he had impersonated petitioner No. 3 at the instance of petitioner No. 1 before the Medical Board. Learned counsel has made a legal submission that the DSP (PW1), who was involved in the recruitment process, was not the punishing authority and, therefore, he was not competent to hold an enquiry into the matter. Besides, PW1 was disqualified being himself involved in the recruitment process. This is also a submission of learned counsel that petitioner No. 3 was not issued any appointment letter and none of the accused persons has received any benefit. This is a further submission of learned counsel that the relationship between the accused persons inter se is also not established. Thus, assailing the judgments of learned Courts below, learned counsel has submitted that the Courts have committed serious error in recording conviction of the accused petitioners even in the absence of evidence to support and under criminal jurisprudence if there is a doubt, the accused would be entitled to get benefit. Even the applications filed under Sections 311 and 391 Cr.P.C. were rejected and the petitioners were not granted enough opportunity to adduce additional evidence and to properly defend themselves. This is also a submission of learned counsel that some of the material evidences have been placed reliance by the trial Court without the same being precisely put to the accused persons during their Court examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Besides, the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the competent authority, who in this case is the Administrator, Chandigarh.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the UT has placed heavy reliance on the evidence of PW13, Police Constable Balwant Singh, and PW2, Dr. M.M.S. Gill, who medically examined petitioner No. 3. Learned counsel also submitted that the accused petitioners have suffered concurrent findings and though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of circumstances is complete.;