CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204 CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 Rajinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PUJA CHOPRA Present: Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate, Ms. Sarita, Advocate, and Mr. Tapreet Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ... PUJA CHOPRA , J. (Oral) In the present criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 21.04.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar modifying the judgment and order dated 15/17.11.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar vide which the petitioner was convicted under Sections 468 & 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each offence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar converted the conviction under Section 468 IPC to Section 465 IPC while maintaining the sentence and conviction and sentence under Section 471 IPC was also maintained. RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 2 2. Briefly, as per the case of the complainant-Balbir, he was a member of Agroha Gramo Udyog Mandal, a registered Society. Accused No.1-Rajinder Singh (petitioner herein) was its President, accused No.2- Nand Lal was its Cashier, accused No.3-Ram Kishan was its former Cashier, and accused No.4-Naurang was the brother of accused No.1/petitioner. As per the Memorandum of Association, since the formation of the Mandal, accused No.1/petitioner and Secretary were entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the accounts of the Mandal. It was alleged that accused No.1-/petitioner, in connivance with the other accused, misused his position and misappropriated the funds of the Mandal collected from the sale of bricks. He opened an account in the Central Cooperative Bank, Agroha on 17.12.1990 and deposited the said amount therein, which was subsequently withdrawn by him. In April 1994, accused No.1/petitioner allegedly fabricated a document in the form of a resolution of the Mandal and produced the same before the bank, on the basis of which permission was obtained for withdrawal of the amount by accused No.1/petitioner and accused No.2-Nand Lal. However, no such resolution had ever been passed by the Mandal. It was further alleged that in the year 1995, the accused misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,74,751/- and in the year 1996, an amount of Rs.5,84,887/- without depositing the same in the account of the Mandal. In this manner, they allegedly misappropriated an amount of about Rs.20 lakh collected from the sale of bricks. It was also alleged that in the last week of March, accused No.1/petitioner approached Harchand and other members of the Mandal and handed over the record/accounts to them, stating that he had RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 3 deposed in a civil suit that the Mandal was not in possession of any account record. Upon verification of the record, Harchand came to know that, on the basis of a forged document, the accused had opened an account in the bank and had failed to deposit the amounts collected on behalf of the Mandal by sale of bricks. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Illaqa Magistrate. 2.1 The complainant led preliminary evidence in the complaint case and upon finding a prima facie case, the accused were ordered to be summoned under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. During the proceedings, accused No.2-Nand Lal and accused No.3-Ram Kishan expired and the proceedings against them were dropped. The complainant thereafter led pre-charge evidence and examined Krishan Lal as PW1, Mahinder as PW3, and himself as PW2. 2.2 Upon finding a prima facie case against accused Rajinder Singh (petitioner herein), charges under Sections 468 and 471 IPC were framed vide order dated 09.07.2007. Whereupon, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. Accused No.4-Naurang Singh was discharged by learned Trial Court. 2.3 The complainant, thereafter, led post charge evidence. Krishan Lal (PW1) produced the record of Agroha Gramo Udyog Mandal. He produced resolutions (Ex.PW3/2 and Ex.PW3/3), specimen signatures (Ex.PW3/4), account statement (Ex.PW3/5), photocopy of the account- opening form (Ex.PW3/1), certificate of registration (Ex.PW3/6), resolution (Ex.PW3/7), and the Rules and Regulations/ Memorandum of RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 4 Association (Ex.PW3/8). Complainant-Birbal (PW2) reiterated the averments made in the complaint and he specifically stated that the Society had resolved in its meeting that an account would be opened either with the Punjab National Bank (PNB) or the State Bank of India (SBI). No resolution had been passed by the Society authorizing the opening of an account with the Central Cooperative Bank. However, the accused prepared the aforesaid resolution themselves and, on the basis thereof, opened an account with the Central Cooperative Bank, Agroha on 17.12.1990. The said resolution was never entered in the record of the Society. He further stated that, after opening the said account, the accused embezzled an amount of approximately Rs.25/30 lakh. 2.4 Mahinder Singh (PW3) produced the proceedings of the Society dated 19.12.1989, which were taken on record as Ex.PW3/A. He stated that, vide resolution dated 15.04.1990 (Ex.PW3/B), authority to open an account of the Society was entrusted to him and Ram Kishan (accused No.3). He further stated that resolution (Ex.PW3/2) was never entered in the record of the Society and that no such resolution had ever been passed by the Society. Similarly, resolution (Ex.PW3/3) was neither entered in the proceedings book of the Society nor was it ever passed by the Society. No authority had been given by the Mandal for opening an account with the Central Cooperative Bank, Hisar. According to PW3, both resolutions (Ex.PW3/2 and Ex.PW3/3) were forged. He further stated that after the resolution dated 15.04.1990 (Ex.PW3/B), no subsequent resolution had been passed authorizing Rajinder and Nand Lal to open an account. He produced the record of the Society as Ex.PW3/C, RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 5 Ex.PW3/4 and Ex.PW3/5. He also stated that resolution (Ex.PW3/7) had never been passed in his presence. PW3 further deposed that the accused had embezzled an amount of approximately Rs.20/30 lakh belonging to the Mandal and that the said amount had never been reflected by the accused in the records of the Gramo Udyog Mandal. 2.5 The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to him in the form of questions, which were denied by him and he claimed false implication and innocence. In defence, accused No.1/petitioner tendered the judgment passed in civil suit No.110-C/ 13.02.1997, decided on 20.02.2001 (Ex.D1), and closed his defence evidence. 3. After appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the arguments advanced by the respective parties, learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him under Sections 468 & 471 IPC as aforesaid. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/17.11.2007 passed by the learned trial Court, accused No.1/petitioner preferred an appeal. Whereupon, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 21.04.2010, modified the judgment of the learned trial Court to the extent that conviction under Section 468 IPC was converted to conviction under Section 465 IPC while maintaining the sentence. However, the conviction and sentence RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 6 under Section 471 IPC was maintained. The present revision petition has accordingly been filed challenging the aforesaid judgments and order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only allegation against the petitioner is with regard to forging of resolutions dated 12.04.1994 (Ex.PW3/2) and 02.09.1997 (Ex.PW3/3) and using the forged resolutions to open an account with Central Cooperative Bank, Agroha. In fact, civil suit No.110-C/13.02.1997 had been filed by Mahinder Singh, member and secretary of Agroha Gramo Udyog Mandal against M/s Agroha Bricks Gram Udyog Mandal, wherein the present petitioner and the Agroha Gramo Udyog Mandal were also arrayed as defendants. The said suit was for rendition of accounts. 5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Mahender Singh, plaintiff in the said civil suit, appeared in the present case as a witness (PW3). The said suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hisar on 20.02.2001 and the appeal against the same was also dismissed. The judgment passed in the said civil suit has been exhibited before the learned trial Court as Ex.D1. 5.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that in the case in hand, no misappropriation or embezzlement or cheating has been proved by complainant and accordingly no charges for the offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC etc. have been framed. The conviction of petitioner was only under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, which was subsequently modified to Sections 465 and 471 IPC by learned appellate Court. The case of complainant is thus restricted to forging of resolutions (Ex.PW3/2 and Ex.PW3/3) and using the same to open a bank account. RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 7 5.3 Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in view of the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, he would not press the instant revision petition on merits and would instead restrict his prayer qua reduction of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence in question pertains to the year 2007 and the petitioner has thus, suffered the agony of criminal proceedings and protracted trial for about 19 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been leading the life of a disciplined and peace loving citizen ever since then and is not involved in any other criminal case. The petitioner is also a first offender. A prayer, therefore, has been made that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a lenient view be taken and the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Courts below be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for reduction of sentence. However, learned State counsel concedes that an appeal was filed by the State of Haryana for enhancement of sentence bearing appeal No.47-CRA of 2008, which was decided along with appeal No.77-CRA of 2007/2008 filed by the present petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Both the appeals were heard together. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on record and hearing the arguments of all parties, the appeal filed by the State of Haryana for enhancement of sentence was dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the petitioner was modified to the extent as aforesaid. RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 8 6.1 Learned State counsel has also produced the custody certificate of the petitioner dated 02.09.2026. A perusal thereof reveals that the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 04 months and 17 days and no other case is pending against the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It may be noticed that learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below, has not pressed the instant revision petition on merits in view of limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction and has confined his prayer to the question of sentence. After perusing the record, it is found that learned Courts below have concluded that judgment (Ex.D1) can be of no help to the accused/petitioner, as the same pertains to rendition of accounts and the forgery of documents was not in issue in the said civil suit. Further, the institution of civil proceedings do not create bar on the criminal proceedings. 8.1 To this extent, this Court agrees with findings of learned Courts below. However, the judgment in civil suit can certainly be looked into for the purpose of sentence being relevant. In M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of Madras and another, 1954 (1) SCC 524, the Five- Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- “12. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 9 eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.” 8.2 This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant has not been able to prove any cheating or the extent of embezzlement, if any, and accordingly appropriate charges for the same have neither been framed in the trial nor the petitioner has been convicted for any such offence. 8.3 Vide order dated 09.07.2007, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, while framing the charges under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, had clearly held:- “… However, the complainant in pre-charge evidence has not been able to establish as to how much amount was misappropriated by the accused. There should have been specific evidence regarding specific sum of money being misappropriated by the accused. However, perusal of evidence led by the complainant does not show specific sum of money misappropriated by the accused, therefore, charge under Section 406 IPC can not be framed against accused.” During the course of trial also, the position remained the same and the complainant was not able to establish any cheating or the extent of embezzlement. 8.4 In view of the clean antecedents of the petitioner, the fact that he has not been involved in any other criminal activity or case of similar nature during the pendency of the present proceedings, and RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 10 considering that he is now around 70 years of age and has faced the agony of criminal proceedings and protracted trial for about 19 years, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner for reduction of sentence. 8.5 At this juncture, this Court also deems it proper to deal with the offence under Section 468 IPC being reduced to Section 465 IPC by learned Appellate Court while maintaining the sentence of 01 year. In Shivaji Narayan Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, 1970 SCC Online Bom 57, a Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where the accused therein had handed over a passbook to savings bank clerk of the post office and expressed intention to withdraw Rs.500/- and the accused also asked the Clerk to give him a withdrawal application form. The accused was booked for offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, as the allegation was that the accused had committed forgery in the passbook and handed over the same to Clerk of post office. The plea of accused therein that he had not received any money from the postal authorities or had not even filled in withdrawal application form was rejected and conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC was upheld as the accused had committed forgery with intent to cheat the postal authorities and had dishonestly and fraudulently used the passbook as genuine which he knew or had reason to believe to have been forged. It was held:- “10. Section 468 of the Penal Code, 1860 provides as follows: “Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 11 of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. The offence under s. 468 is an aggravated form of the offence of forgery. Under s. 463 “Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” 12. Under s. 464, which is to be read as part of the definition of “forgery” in s. 463. xxx xxx xxx 13. ...The offence of forgery simpliciter is punishable under s. 465… The ingredient of the offence under s. 468 is the committing of forgery with a particular intent, that intent being that the document forged should be used for the purpose of cheating. The section does not require that the accused should actually commit the offence of cheating. Forgery is usually an act done in the furtherance of some other criminal design. What is material is the intention or purpose of the offender in committing forgery. If his intention or purpose in committing forgery is that the forged document should be used for the purpose of cheating, the offender is guilty of the aggravated offence under s. 468. If a forged document was in fact used by the offender for the purpose of cheating, he would be guilty both of the offence under s. 468 as also the offence of cheating and he would be liable to be punished for both these offences.” RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 12 Thus, the learned Appellate Court incorrectly converted the offence under Section 468 IPC to offence under Section 465 IPC. However, at this stage, notice is not required to be issued to petitioner as the petitioner is already represented through his counsel, who has expressed no objection to the said course being adopted by this Court in view of the prayer of counsel for petitioner for reduction of sentence considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. As aforesaid, appeal filed by State of Haryana for enhancement of sentence from 01 year under Section 468 IPC imposed by learned trial Court stands dismissed. Even, learned Appellate Court had maintained his sentence of 01 year imposed under Section 465 IPC. Further, the same has not been challenged before this Hon’ble Court. 8.6 Thus, for the purpose of reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner, this Court draws support from Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654 (Crl. Appeal No.3081 of 2026, decided on 23.06.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of the appellants therein to the period already undergone and it was held as under:- “17. There can be no manner of doubt that offences involving forgery and use of forged documents in judicial proceedings are serious in nature. Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC deal with the offences which undermine the authenticity and sanctity attached to public and legal documents. Use of forged documents before a Court of law cannot be viewed lightly. 18. At the same time, while considering the question of sentence, the Court is required to balance the nature of the RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 13 offence with the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, the role attributed to the accused, the period of incarceration undergone, the passage of time and other mitigating circumstances relevant to sentencing jurisprudence. The principle of proportionality remains central to the sentencing process. Sentencing cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise divorced from the factual matrix of the case and the overall circumstances of the offender.” 8.7 Similarly, in Satish vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that, "Whilst it is undoubtedly true that society has a right to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free roaming criminals creating havoc in the lives of ordinary peace loving citizens. But equally strong is the foundation of reformative theory which propounds that a civilized society cannot be achieved only through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness; and that instead public harmony, brotherhood and mutual acceptability ought to be fostered. Thus, first time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look forward to a bright future. [Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107: 1981 SCC (Cri) 112]". 8.8 This view has also been taken by this Hon’ble Court in Sanwal Ram vs. State of Haryana, CRR-2795-2009, decided on 19.03.2025, a case of conviction under Sections 420, 465, 468, 416, 417 and 120-B IPC, this Court considering the circumstances that the accused is 88 years old and had already undergone 3 months 6 days out of 2 years; first time offender; no criminal antecedents, took a lenient view furthering the cause of justice and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1270-2010 (O&M) 14 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled principles of law, the judgment dated 15.11.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar convicting the petitioner under Sections 468 and 471 IPC is upheld and the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar is modified to that extent. However, the sentence of imprisonment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. To that extent, the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar stands modified. The sentence of fine remains intact. 10. The present revision is disposed of in the above terms. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (PUJA CHOPRA) 03.09.2026 JUDGE Rajan Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RAJAN 2026.09.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document