Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A government employee forged a transfer certificate by adding Kalu Singh’s name for transfer, thereby naming the service position in his name.With that certificate, he procured appointment to the post of Buffalo Attendant in the Veterinary Department and was challenged before the Trial court u/s419 [Punishment for cheating by personation], S.468 [forgery for purpose of cheating] and S.471 [Using as genuine a forged]
After investigation,Trial Court held that Man Singh got the service due to such forged documents and not allowing another unemployed person to have the chance.Hence he is liable under S419, S468, and S 471.Also he would not be allowed to enjoy any probation of being a government agent, and punished him rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs.2000.
Singh being unhappy with the order, appealed to the Sessions Court. Even the Sessions Court agreed with the decision of the Trial Court and convicted Singh on the same grounds and added that the Trial Court was lenient with its decision and would not interfere in this matter. A criminal revision was filed in the High Court by Singh.The High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence from one year to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs.10,000/.Man Singh deposited the amount and as per S482 CrPC [Saving of inherent powers of High Court.] asked to grant him benefit.The Judge of High Court allowed the benefit under Probation Of Offenders Act and that is service career shouldn’t be affected.
To this arbitrary decision of the High Court, The State of Madhya Pradesh, biked an appeal in Supreme Court, to which Supreme Court put forward its disappointment with Madhya Pradesh High Court and found its judgement arbitrary, improper and not needed. Judge Deepak Gupta held that “It is well settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to review its order either under Section 362 or under Section 482 of CrPC. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits. After disposing of a case on merits, the Court becomes functus officio and Section 362 CrPC expressly bars review and specifically provides that no Court after it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
Recall of judgment would amount to alteration or review of judgment which is not permissible under Section 362 CrPC. It cannot be validated by the High Court invoking its inherent powers”. And quashed the judgement of High Court and observed that:
The trial court had given reasons for not giving benefit of probation. When the High Court was deciding the revision petition against the order of conviction, it could have, after callingfor a report of the Probation Officer in terms of Section 4 of the Act, granted probation. Even in such a case it had to give reasons why it disagreed with the trial court and the first appellate court on the issue of sentence. The High Court, in fact, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone meaning thereby that the conviction was upheld and sentence was imposed. After sentence had been imposed and served and fine paid, there was no question of granting probation.
In conclusion, SC allowed the appeal set aside HC’s order, since Singh got his job by forging the documents, he will receive no benefit of probation and also would jot be able to retain his job.
86540
103860
630
114
59824