IN THE COURT OF PAVLEEN SINGH, PCS, JUDICIAL ...

State Vs Asha Sharma 1

IN THE COURT OF PAVLEEN SINGH, PCS,JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, CHANDIGARH.

P.Ch. No. 12974 of 09.07.2015/2013 Date of decision:- 01.09.2016

STATE

versus

Smt. Asha Sharma, IAS, wife of Sh. R.K. Sharma, r/o H.No.55, Sector

5, Chandigarh.

... Accused.

FIR No.04 of 03.05.2003U/s. 420,468,477,406 of IPC.

P.S. Vigilance, Chandigarh.

Present Sh.Lovneesh Mehmi, APP for the state. Accused(on bail) with counsel Sh.Raman Mahajan,

Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. The above named accused has been sent up to face trial for an

offense punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 477 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter, referred as IPC) by Station House Officer, Police

Station Vigilance,Chandigarh.

2. The prosecution in the present case has been initiated on the

complaint filed by Smt. Chander Kala, who has asserted, therein, that a civil

litigation was pending in the court between her and her daughters namely Raj

Rani and Asha Sharma and in the said case file pertaining to house No. 1572,

sector 36-D, Chandigarh was summoned in a sealed cover by Raj Rani. It is

asserted that on opening the said sealed cover on 12/11/1999, it transpired

that the original Will of late Sh. Balwant Singh, husband of the complainant

Pavleen Singh ,JMIC, Chd.


was missing from the record. It was, also, revealed that on page No. 10 and

11 of the same file there were a series of noting revealing that the original

office file was taken to the residence of Asha Sharma IAS (daughter of

complainant and Late Sh. Balwant Singh), on the orders of then A.E.O.,

Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh and the concerned clerk had made the noting

that Asha Sharma had tampered some of the documents there in.

3. On the complaint of Ms. Chander Kala, enquiry was conducted and

final report of the enquiry was sent on 26/04/2000 vide Memo No.

209/VIG/UT. Case under section 406, 420, 468, 477 of Indian penal

code(hereinafter, referred as IPC) was registered against Smt. Asha Sharma.

During the investigation of the case SI Jaswinder Singh has taken the record

into the possession and recorded the statements of the concerned. After his

transfer, the case was handed over to SI Darshan Kumar to complete the

investigation from the investigation and it has been found that on the basis of

the documents attached along with the application of Smt. Chander Kala,i.e.

death certificate of Balwant Singh, attested copy of will dated 23/07/1967,

affidavit of Chander Kala, joint affidavit of Raj Rani, Asha Sharma and

Ravinder Singh and affidavit of Raghbir Singh, for transfer of the house No.

1572, sector 36, Chandigarh on the basis of will dated 23/07/1967, the house

was transferred in the name of Chander Kala on 08/12/1986 by the Estate

Office. It was found that as the differences between the legal heirs cropped

up, later on, and the transfer in the name of Chander Kala was challenged by

her daughters and the same was cancelled by Estate office vide order dated

20/11/1995. Against the said order Smt.Chander Kala filed an appeal before



Chief Administrator Chandigarh and the house was restored to Smt. Chander

Kala in the appeal. Aggrieved against the order of Chief Admin. Raj Rani

filed the revision petition before the advisor, Administrator Chandigarh on

10/02/1998, but the same was declined. Then, a civil suit was filed by both

the daughters challenging the transfer of house and the same was pending.

Further, during the course of investigation, it was found that late Sh.Balwant

Singh has executed a will qua his movable and immovable property in favor

of his wife and after his death on 20/04/1981, complainant Smt. Chander Kala

applied to the Estate Office on 28/11/1986 for the transfer of house No. 1572,

sector 36-D, Chandigarh in her name and had attached death certificate of

Balwant Singh, attested copy of the Will, joint affidavit of Raj Rani, Asha

Sharma and Ravinder Singh and affidavit of Col. Raghbir Singh. On the basis

of these documents, the house qua which the Will was executed was

transferred in favor of Smt. Chander Kala, but later on, Raj Rani challenged

the same and prayed for the transfer of property in the name of all legal heirs.

However, it came up before the investigating officer that in the end of

February 1996 Mrs Asha Sharma, IAS, requested Sh. RS Doon, HCS, the then

AEO, Estate Office, Chandigarh to make the above said file available to her at

her residence I.e house No. 55, sector 5, Chandigarh for inspection. On this he

asked the concerned assistant Sh.Murari Lal to make the file available to her

and Sh. Murari Lal, asked the concerned clerk to go to the residence of Mrs

Asha Sharma. The concerned clerk, Ranbir Singh Gill, handed over the file to

Mrs. Asha Sharma with request to return the same after inspection but

Mrs.Asha Sharma took the file with her and the file was given back by her



only on 06/03/1996. The concerned clerk Ranbir Singh inspected the file and

found that some of the documents had been removed by Mrs. Asha Sharma

and she had placed the photocopy of the said documents. Consequently, he

brought the matter to the notice of the Assistant Estate Officer and submitted

the detail of the removed documents, to the effect that affidavit of late

Raghbir Singh, joint affidavit of Raj Rani, Asha Sharma and Ravinder Singh,

Will of Balwant Singh has been removed and the photocopy of the same has

been placed on record. He reported, further, that the draft letter bearing Memo

No. 38392/RPD 15624/group IV dated 20/11/1995 and the signatures of AEO

on the correspondence dated 21st of July 1995 have been crossed. With these

acts, it is alleged by the prosecution that Smt.Asha Sharma dishonestly

removed the documents from the file and altered the same with photostat

copy and thus committed an offence of criminal breach of trust, cheating and

fraudulently destroyed the Will which is a valuable security and committed

the offence of forgery with intent to cause wrongful loss to Smt. Chander

Kala and wrongful gain to herself.

4. On the basis of the said the investigation, challan under section 406,

420, 468 and 477 IPC was submitted against the accused Smt.Asha Sharma.

The accused was granted anticipatory bail and was released on bail by the

police. Copies of Challan have been supplied to accused free of costs.

5. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused the offenses

punishable under section 406,420,468 and 477 IPC, charge was framed

against them in the aforesaid sections, to which the accused did not plead

guilty and claimed trial.



6. In evidence against the accused, the prosecution got examined

following witnesses:

PW-1 Pardeep Kumar Dhawan Who identified signatures of Vineeta Rai IAS on the order passed on 10.11.1999

PW-2 Darshan Kumar Inspector(retired)

Who proved the statement recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW2/1

PW-3 Ashok Sangwan Who proved on record letters Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B

PW-4 Gurbachan Singh Who proved on record application Ex.PW4/A; noting Ex.PW4/B; , noting Ex.PW4/C

PW-5 Ashwani Kumar

PW-6 Ranbir Singh Gill Who proved notings Ex.PW6/1 & Ex.PW6/2; noting dt. 15.3.96 Ex.PW6/3; noting Ex.W6/4; endorsement Ex.PW6/5; noting Ex.PW6/6, noting Ex.PW6/7; letter dt. 21.7.1995 Ex.PW6/8

PW-7 Rabindra Singh Who proved copy of Will dt. 23.7.1967 Ex.PW7/A; copy of statement E.PW7/B; copy of judgment ex.PW7/C; death certificate Ex.PW7/D; affidavit Ex.PW6/11; affidavit Ex.PW7/E; Letter Ex.PW7/F.

PW-8 Gurdial Singh Who proved record Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B; his signatures on Ex.PW8/C

PW-9 Insp. Jaswinder Singh

Who proved FIR Ex.PW9/1; seizure memo Ex.PW9/2; notings Ex.PW6/1 and Ex.PW6/7; joint affidavit Ex.PW6/10; complaint Ex.PW8/A; inquiry report Ex.PW8/C

PW-8 (wrongly)writ

Sh. R.S.



ten as PW-8) Doon

Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed by order of the

Court.

7. Later, the above said incriminating evidence was put to the accused

and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein

she submitted a detailed plea that she is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the above mentioned case by vested interest to cover up the

own criminal acts of complainant and her son. She submitted that at no point

of time ever was the Estate office file number RPD 15624 pertaining to the

house No. 1572, sector 36 D, Chandigarh was entrusted to her by Ranbir

Singh Gill employee of Estate officer Chandigarh for inspection or otherwise

as she had never asked for inspection of Estate office file at any point of time.

Neither had an access to the same being an officer of Haryana Cadre of IAS

and have never served in UT administration Chandigarh. She submitted that

as the said file was never handed over to her and received by her, so the

question of her removing the material documents and doing alterations in

others does not arise. She submitted that her father died intestate and that no

joint affidavit along with Raj Rani Singh and Ravinder Singh was executed

by her. It is alleged that complainant Smt. Chander Kala and Sh.Ravinder

Singh and their co-conspirators with the active connivance of the Estate

office officials especially Mr Ranbir Singh Gill and others have committed

fraud and in the absence of any alleged will of late Sh. Balwant Singh they

have tried to fabricate false evidence and manufacture false records and have

got issued certified copy of non-existing documents.



8. I have heard ld. APP for the state and ld. Defence counsel. It is

argued by the Ld. APP for the State that the onus laid upon the prosecution

has been established through the testimony of Ranbir Singh Gill and

R.S.Doon examined by the prosecution, have duly testified the fact that

impugned file bearing RPD No. 15624 was sent to the residence of accused

and when the same was received back tempering of document was found

therein. It is argued by him that the accused convicted on the basis of same.

On the other hand, however, counsel for the accused has vehemently argued

that the whole case of the prosecution is simply based upon whims and

fancies, and all the witnesses have deposed deliberately against the accused at

the instance of complainant and her son. It is vehemently argued that the

testimony of Ranbir Singh Gill cannot be relied upon as the looting dated

07/03/1996 has been entered later on for falsely implicating the accused in a

criminal case. It is argued that there is no noting on the file that the same was

ever sent to accused at her residence for inspection. It is argued that counsel

for the complainant had inspected the impugned file but had not taken any

action upon the same. It is argued that the testimony of the witnesses is full of

lacunae and have left various doubts and loopholes unanswered, foreign

which benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and she should be

acquitted of the charges framed against her.

9. After going through the case file minutely, it is clear that the onus

has been laid upon the prosecution to prove that:

1. During the period of February 1996 at House No. 55, sector

5, Chandigarh accused Smt. Asha Sharma was entrusted with



official file of estate office Chandigarh pertaining to house No.

1572, sector 36-D, Chandigarh bearing RPD No. 15624 by Sh.

Ranbir Singh Gill on her request.

2. That accused Smt. Asha Sharma removed the material

documents, i.e. original affidavit of Lieutenant Col. Raghbir Singh,

Joint affidavit of Smt. Raj Rani, Ravinder Singh, and Asha Sharma

herself and Will of Balwant Singh and placed photo copies of the

same, and

3. That the accused crossed a draft letter bearing No.

38392/RPD/15624/G IV and the signatures of AEO on

correspondence dated 21/07/1995.

10. On the perusal of the evidence, led by the prosecution this court is

of the opinion that prosecution has established the above said three facts, due

to which accused Smt.Asha Sharma is bound to be convicted.

11. The most important witness in the present case is PW6, Ranbir

Singh Gill, as it was on the basis of his noting dated 07.03.1996 in the file

number RPD 15624 pertaining to house No. 1572, sector 36, Chandigarh, that

the allegations against the accused have been leveled. He has vehemently

asserted that in February 1996, there was a retirement party in the office and

the senior assistant Sh. Murari lal directed him to show the file number RPD

156242 to accused Smt.Asha Sharma, at her residence house No. 55, sector 5,

Chandigarh. He submitted that he checked the complete file and saw that the

same was having the documents including attested copy of the will dated

23/07/1967, affidavit of Raghbir Singh, joint affidavit of Smt. Raj Rani, Asha



Sharma and Ravinder Singh enclosed therein. He asserted, further, that after

checking the file, he went to house of the accused who told her to leave the

file with her but he refused the same. He asserted that accused Smt. Asha

Sharma, thereafter, called Sh. R.S.Doon, AEO at about 6 PM and on his

verbal instructions over the telephone, he left the file in possession of accused

who failed to return the same to him till March 06, 1996. He alleged, further,

that after inspecting the file he found that the record of the file was tampered

for which he reported that the original affidavit of Ragbir Singh, joint

affidavit of Raj Rani Ashok Sharma and Ravinder Singh, Will of Balwant

Singh were taken out from the file and their photo copies were placed. He,

further, submitted that the draft letter bearing memo no. 38392/RPD

15624/G/IV dated 20/11/1995 and the signatures of AEO dated 21/07/1995

were, also, crossed and qua the same he gave noting EX. PW6/1, which was

marked to assistant G IV and after the signatures of later, the same was

marked to SEO. He asserted that Chaudhri Surjan Singh, also, gave noting

upon the same as EX. PW6/2. Therafter, another noting on 15/03/1996 as

EX.P W6/3 was also given by him where in he reported that despite efforts

been made to trace the documents of the file, he could not do so. He

submitted, further, that on the basis of his noting the matter was forwarded to

Assistant G IV, Supt thereafter Surjan Singh gave the noting EX. PW6/4 that

the said fact was brought to the notice of assistant estate officer and matter

was marked to G IV vide endorsement EX.PW 6/5. Later, Murari lal gave

noting Ex.PW6/6 that the matter was already brought to the notice of AEO on

6 March 96. Thereafter, Surjan Singh gave noting EX. PW6/7.



12. It is asserted, further, by Ranbir Singh Gill that he was later on

transferred in licensing Branch and the matter could not be pursued further by

him. He, also, brought forth letter dated 21/07/1995 in which signatures of Sh.

RS Doon were crossed as EX.PW6/8. Also, photocopy of will of Balwant

Singh, affidavit of Raj Rani Asha Sharma and Ravinder Singh and affidavit

of Raghbir Singh have been produced as Ex.PW6/9 to Ex.PW6/11. Though

he asserted that he can produce a noting prior to 07/03/1996, however the said

noting was not produced on record by him.

13. In his cross-examination he has vehemently asserted that he was

sent to the house of accused by Sh. R.S. Doon where that he had handed over

the entire file to the accused at her residence and that while the same was in

her custody, she had tampered with it. It is pertinent to note that initially it

was asserted by the witness that he had recorded the noting prior to taking the

file to the house of the accused, however in his cross-examination he has

completely denied said fact. Except the procedural irregularities of not

producing the movement register of files showing the entry qua the file being

sent to the house of accused and not recording any noting prior to taking the

file to the accused's house, nothing contrary has been adduced by the counsel

for the accused in his testimony. (The above said contentions have been dealt

later).

14. The next important witness examined by the prosecution is Sh. R.S.

Doon, who has vehemently asserted in his testimony, as PW 8, that he had

received telephonic message from Sh. P.K.Verma, IAS, who was posted as

Secretary to Government of Punjab, Chandigarh Administration, to depute



concerned officials for getting the file inspected by Smt. Asha Sharma, IAS

belonging to Haryana cadre, his batch mate. He asserted that the message so

received by him was conveyed to the superintendent Surjan Singh and

concerned Assistant Murari Lal that inspection should be done under their

own personal supervision. He asserted that, thereafter, we went to attend the

farewell party. He submitted that he had conveyed the message to allow

inspection in the good faith and as per practice prevalent regarding the

inspection of the files in the estate office and there was no malafide on his

part, rather he discharged his duties in a bonafide manner conveying the

message to the superintendent but after 15/20 days he was informed that

when the file was sent to the house of the accused, the same was retained by

her and some of the documents in the said file have been replaced. He

asserted that he had directed the officials to bring the documents back from

the accused, otherwise the action will be taken against them but as he had to

visit Delhi for urgent work, he could not pursue the matter.

15. He submitted that the noting is made on the page bearing No.

10/11seems to be a fabricated document which seems to be placed at a later

date after his transfer as is evident from the fact that same was never

submitted to him during his tenure. In his cross-examination nothing contrary

has been adduced by the counsel for the accused.

16. On the conjoint reading of evidence led by the prosecution it is

very clear that both Ranbir Singh Gill and R.S. Doon examined as PW-6 and

PW-8, respectively have admitted that file RPD no. 1652 was sent to the

house of Asha Sharma. In this regard the contention of Smt. Asha Sharma,



that she never received the file, so recorded in her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C is

falsified.

17. As far as the arguments of the counsel for the accused to the effect

that no noting has been mentioned on the day when the file was allegedly

handed over to Smt.Asha Sharma at her residence in February, 1996 and that

no action was taken with regard to the loss of documents and the noting given

by Ranbir Singh Gill on 7.3.1996 are concerned, this court is of the opinion

that on the basis of procedural irregularities on the part of the Government

Officials, benefit of doubt cannot be given to the accused, especially when the

whole incident has been covered in the noting dated 07.03.1996 and it has

been vehemently stated by both the witnesses Ranbir Singh Gill and R.S.

Doon that the file was supplied at the residence of Smt. Asha Sharma.

18. It is pertinent to note here that It would have been very easy for

Ranbir Singh Gill to put a noting of February, 1996 in the file to show that he

is going to take the file for inspection at the house of the accused, if he had to

fabricate the record malafidely. However, the same has not been done by him.

Rather, he has deposed honestly that though he received file on 06.03.1996

but he gave the noting on 07.03.1996. The genuineness of the witness has not

been vitiated by the counsel for the accused in this respect.

18. Further, the testimony of Ranbir Singh Gill has been corroborated

by Sh. R.S.Doon, also. Sh. R.S.Doon has gone to the extent of explaining the

whole background by naming the senior official due to which he gave

direction to his subordinate for showing the file to Smt. Asha Sharma for

inspection at her place. Though he submitted that the noting at page 10 and 11



of the file were not produced before him during his tenure, but qua the same,

this court is of the opinion that the same is an improved version to support the

case of the accused for the reasons best known to him as in his earlier

statements recorded at the time of enquiry, the same has not been mentioned.

The fact that Sh.R.S.Doon has admitted that Ranbir Singh Gill informed him

about the replacing and alteration in the documents when he received the file

back form the accused, justifies the genuineness of the noting dated

07.03.1996.

19. Further, no reason has been explained by the accused as to why

both these persons would falsely implicate her name in this case. Simple

allegation that complainant and her son want to implicate her falsely to hide

their illegal activities, does not suffice as a defense, more so when it is very

clear that the alteration of the material documents, which were supporting the

case of the complainant, has gone in the favor of the accused and her sister

only.

20. Though the complainant herself has not appeared before the court to

testify regarding the allegations leveled by her, however, her son Ravinder

Singh has appeared before the court as PW7. He has asserted in his

examination in Chief that his mother had applied for the transfer of House

No. 1572, sector 36-D, Chandigarh on 28/11/1986 on the basis of will dated

23/07/1967. He asserted that his mother relied upon the affidavit of Raghbir

Singh and joint affidavit of Raj Rani , Asha Sharma and Ravinder Singh for

the same and vide letter dated 08/12/1986, EX. PW7/F, the property was

transferred in favour of complainant. It is submitted, further, that on



20/11/1995 vide EX PW6/9, Estate officer reviewed his own decision of the

transfer of house No. 1572, sector 36, Chandigarh against which his mother

preferred an appeal for the court of Chief administrator, Chandigarh through

her counsel and vide order dated 10/02/1998, the cancellation was set aside

and the possession was restored in favor of complainant. Simultaneously, he

submitted, complainant had filed a civil suit No. 160 of 1994 seeking

permanent injunction against Raj Rani and accused Asha Sharma. The record

of the Estate officer was summoned and made available to both the parties

vide order dated 12 No. 1999 and it was on the said date that complainant

came to know about the removal of documents and crossing of a draft and

signatures of AEO on correspondence dated 21/07/1995. He asserted that the

accused be convicted.

21. As far as cross-examination of this witness is concerned he has

admitted his relationship with that of the accused being his sister. In his cross-

examination he has reiterated his allegations leveled against the complainant

and nothing contrary has been adduced by the counsel for the accused in the

nature of falsifying his testimony upon the documents on record.

22. Further, prosecution has examined Gurbachan Singh as PW 4, who

has submitted that in the month of April 1999 he was working as a clerk in

estate office. He asserted that on 19/04/1999, an application was received

from Sh. KS Grewal on behalf of complainant Smt. Chander Kala for

supplying the attested copies of the documents mentioned in the application,

i.e. EX. PW4/A. He submitted that he had placed the said letter to senior

assistant on 20/04/1999 vide his noting EX. PW4/B. He, further, asserted that



after following the procedure of the office, the file was put up before the then

assistant estate officer vide his initials on the same EX. PW4/C. He submitted

that the attested copies of the documents mentioned in the application were

supplied as per the recorded in his cross-examination he has admitted that the

documents so demanded by the counsel for the complainant was sent to the

copying branch on 23/04/1999 but he could not tell as to who prepared the

said copies. He, further, submitted that the complete file was not sent to the

copping agency but the documents which were demanded vide EX. PW4/A

and approved by EX. PW4/C were taken out from the file and were sent to

the copping agency on 23/04/1999. He also admitted in his cross-examination

that Sh.K.S.Grewal, also, applied for the certified copies as per application

dated 16/03/1999 that is application 28/11/1986, joint affidavit, will, order of

transfer, application dated 4/5/1995 and review order.

23. With regard to the objection so taken by accused that despite

Sh.K.S.Grewal (counsel for Smt. Chanderkala) having inspected the file on

24.02.1999, no action was taken by him regarding the noting of Ranbir Singh

Gill, it is submitted that the application for inspection filed by Sh.K.S.Grewal

has been produced on record as Ex.DX. On the perusal of the same, it is

adduced that inspection was only made for the purposes for seeing the

original order dated 10.02.1996. Initially Sh.K.S.Grewal had sought for

inspection of the whole file but later on he mentioned that he only wants to

see order dated 10.2.1998. the said specification is clear from the same. The

subsequent alternation and addition in the said application shows that he was

not allowed to see the whole file. So, in these circumstances, it cannot be



attributed upon the complainant and her counsel that they were aware of the

noting dated 07.03.1996 and had deliberately not taken action upon it.

24. Further, it is pertinent to note that though the complainant sought for

copies of documents including copy of Will dated 23.7.67 of Col. Balwant

Singh, application for transfer of house dated 28.11.96, joint affidavit of Asha

Rani and Raj Rani and Raghbir Singh dt. 28.11.98, allotment letter in favor

of Chander Kala vide order dated 8.12.86, application by Raj Rani dated

04.05.1995 and fresh order of allotment, however, vide order dated

02.04.1999 only allotment letter in favor of Chander Kala dated 8.12.86 and

review order dt. 20.11.1995 were supplied. The same, also, shows that the

complainant was not given a free hand over the documents and the Estate

office file.

25. The another factor, which is pertinent to note, herein, regarding

bonafide of the complainant is that during the pendency of the Civil case,

the file RPD no. 195624 was summoned from the Estate Office on the

application of Raj Rani, sister of Smt. Asha Sharma accused, to substantiate

her own stand and not by the complainant. The conduct of the complainant

having taken the action at that time shows that she came to know about the

same at that time.

26. Further, the prosecution has examined, Sh. Pardeep Kumar Dhawan,

Inspector Darshan Kumar and Ashok Sangwan, Director Urban Bodies,

Haryana as PW1, PW2 and PW3, who have simply proved the revision

petition No. 189 of 1990 cited on 10/11/1999 by Vineeta Rai, IAS, statement

of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, assistant estate officer, recorded as EX.PW 2/1 and



reference to SSP, Incharge Vigilance cell, Chandigarh to register the case

against the accused, respectively. The testimonies of these witnesses is

procedural in nature and the same have proved the documents which are a

matter of record.

27. Also, the prosecution has examined Ashwani Kumar as PW5. He

submitted that he was posted as Estate office, Chandigarh as Estate officer,

from March 2002 till October 2003 and that all the files pertaining to the

property situated in Chandigarh were in the custody of the dealing assistants

as well as the record keeper and as and when the request pertaining to transfer

as well as other matter was received the concerned assistance of the office

used to put the files after making necessary noting is on the same. He

submitted that all kinds of cases comprising of general public as well as

VVIPS are dealt by the office in the same manner and whenever any request

regarding inspection of the file was received, the inspection is carried out in

the presence of the concerned and the dealing assistants are responsible for

the safe custody of the records who are responsible for the same is submitted

that it is only in exceptional cases where it is not possible for a senior official

to inspect the file in the office due to paucity of time or their busy schedule,

the said files are shown to them after seeking permission of the competent

authority and the dealing hands are to ensure the safe custody of the record. In

his cross-examination he has asserted that every file of the estate office

pertaining to the property has two sides to take noting section and

correspondence section and whenever, the same has to be dealt with by

courting the facts in the noting portion by the person who is dealing with the



5 and the said noting has to be initialed by the dealing hand/record

keeper/assistant and thereafter by the superintendent.

28. The said witness has simply asserted the procedure being followed

in the Estate Office for getting the inspection of a file and that the dealing

clerk is responsible for any fault in the same.

29. As PW8, Gurdial Singh, inspector vigilance, Chandigarh has been

examined to prove enquiry reports submitted by him has EX. PW8/A to C.

While, Inspector Jaswinder Singh, PW 9, has proved the investigation so

done by him and in his testimony is reiterated with the contents of the

complaint and the facts as noticed in the file RPD 15624. However, he

admitted that no action was taken by estate office for registration of the case

against the accused after the noting dated 07/03/1996.

30. Thus, with the above said evidence, especially through the testimony

of Ranbir Singh Gill and R.S.Doon, it has been proved by the prosecution

beyond all reasonable doubts that accused Smt. Asha Sharma was handed

over the impugned file by Ranbir Singh Gill.

31. As far as the facts that accused had taken out the original

documents, including affidavit of Raghbir Singh, joint affidavit of herself, Raj

Rani and Rabindra Singh and the attested copy of the Will of Balwant Singh

from the same, and placed the photocopies there, and that she had crossed the

draft letter bearing memo no. 38392/RPD/15629/GIV dated 20.1.95 and

signatures of Assistant Estate Officer on the correspondence dated

21.07.1995, are concerned, the same have been proved through testimony of

Ranbir Singh Gill to the effect that prior to giving the file to the accused, the



same were available in a proper manner in the file.

32. Admittedly, there was dispute of both the sisters, Raj Rani and Asha

Sharma with their mother Chanderkala and their brother regarding the house

left by Col. Balwant Singh and that sister of Asha Rani had been trying to

vitiate the Will of Col.Balwant Singh and get the property transferred in

name of all the legal heirs to the extent of 1/4th share. These circumstances,

thus, suggests that the accused, with the impugned file of Estate Office

delivered to her, was not only having the opportunity to alter the same but

was having a dishonest intention to draw wrongful gain by the changes in the

material documents, relied by the complainant. Certainly, the alterations in/of

the documents of the impugned file, were beneficial for the case put up by the

accused and her sister. It was for this reason only that her sister confidently

summoned the said file in the court to support her case.

33. With these observations, this court is of the opinion that the

prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts that accused

Smt.Asha Sharma had tampered the record of estate Office when the same

was delivered to her.

34. The next matter which comes for consideration is to book the

liability of the accused as per the provisions of IPC. The accused, herein, was

handed over the estate office file and she had returned the same after taking

out the original affidavit of Raghbir Singh, joint affidavit of herself, Raj Rani

and Rabinder Singh along with the attested copy of Will of Col.Balwant

Singh and replacing the same with photocopies of the same. Though she has

been charge sheeted under Section 406, 420 IPC, however, the said sections



do not comprehend with the Actus reus of the whole incident. But as far as

replacing the attested/ original documents with photocopies is concerned,

certainly the same amounts to diminishing the value and utility of the papers

so as to cause wrongful loss to complainant Smt. Chanderkala, who had

placed reliance upon the said documents to support her claim and has,

thereby, committed mischief with the same, punishable under section 426 of

Indian Penal Code.

35. As far as crossing the draft letter bearing memo no.

38392/RPD/15629/G IV dated 20.11.1995 and crossing the signatures of

Assistant Estate Officer on the correspondence dated 21.7.1995 is concerned

the same is covered within Section 464, secondly clause, IPC, whereby

accused without having any lawful authority dishonestly altered the said

documents and has thereby forged the same. Consequently, for having

canceling the said documents she has certainly made herself liable for

committing forgery of the public record kept by the public servant which is

punishable under Section 466 IPC.

36. As far as the essential ingredients of Section 406,420,468 and 477

IPC , for which the charge has been framed, are concerned, the same have

not been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the accused is acquitted

thereunder and is held guilty under Section 426 and 466 of IPC. Let she be

heard on the quantum of sentence.

Pronounced in open court

Pronounced on: 01.09.2016 Pavleen Singh Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Chandigarh.



QUESTION OF SENTENCE

Present: Sh.Loveneesh Mehmi, APP for the state.Convict Asha Sharma with counsel Sh. Raman Mahajan, Advocate.

The convict has submitted that she is the first offendor and has

prayed for taking a lenient view for her being an old lady and a senior

IAS officer. APP for the State, however, has controverted the said plea

asserting that strict action be taken against her being an offendor while

being at a very responsible post.

2. Heard the ld. APP for the state and convict in person. Keeping in

view all the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the rival

contentions of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no leniency

can be granted in such like offences. Further, after giving careful thought to

the prayer so made by the convict viz-a-viz the gravity of the offence proved

to have been committed by her, this court is not inclined to be unduly lenient

towards her for giving her concession of probation. Accordingly, convict

Asha Sharma is, hereby, sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment as

under:-

Sr.no Name of the Convict

Under Section

Rigorous

Imprisonment

Fine In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment

1. Asha Sharma 426 IPC

466 IPC

Three months (R.I.)

Three years (R.I.)

Rs.1000/-

Rs.1000/-

One month

One month



3. Period of imprisonment already undergone by the convict during

inquiry, investigation or trial of the case, if any, be set off from the

substantive sentences to be undergone by her. All these sentences shall run

concurrently. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.

Bail bond, surety bonds of accused and supurdari bonds stand discharged.

Case property be dealt as per rules. File be consigned to the judicial record

room after due compilation.

Pronounced in open court on:- 01.09.2016 Pavleen Singh

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh.

ShaluJ.W-I



Present: Sh.Lovneesh Mehmi, APP for the state. Accused on bail assisted by counsel Sh.Raman Mahajan, Adv.

Arguments heard. Vide separate judgment of even date accused

is convicted and sentenced accordingly. File be consigned to the record room

after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court on:-01.09.2016

Pavleen SinghJudicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Chandigarh.



Present : Convict with counsel .

At this stage counsel for the convict moved

applications under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension

of the sentence of the convict. Notice given. Heard. In

view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the

sentence of the convict is suspended upto 30.09.2016

on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs.70,000/- with

one surety in the like amount. Requisite bonds

furnished, accepted and attested. Bail bonds be

separated from the file and be put up on 30.09.2016

for further proceedings.

( Pavleen Singh) JMIC/Chandigarh/01.09.2016

.


IN THE COURT OF PAVLEEN SINGH, PCS, JUDICIAL ...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE COURT OF PAVLEEN SINGH, PCS, JUDICIAL ...