Ludhiana: A local court has sentenced three persons to three years of rigorous imprisonment in a forgery case. The court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Himanshu Arora also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on the convicts and in case of default in payment of fine, they will have to undergo simple imprisonment for two more months.
On October 4, 2014, division number six police had booked Kanwaljit Singh of New Shivaji Nagar, his father Inderjit Singh and Jagjit Singh of Lalto Khurd under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of the IPC for allegedly forging permits for trucks.
As per the prosecution, while on patrol inspector Rajwant Singh received information that accused Kanwaljit Singh and Inderjit Singh were engaged in forging permits for trucks and anyone desirous of obtaining a permit for a truck was approaching them. In return for money less than the official fee for preparation of a permit, they were forging permits and dishonestly delivered them by disclosing them as true permits and thus caused huge financial loss to the state. Accused Jagjit Singh, who owned a vehicle bearing no. PB 10 CL 9343 was known to the accused and had got prepared a forged permit for his aforesaid vehicle from them and was well aware about the fact that the permit was forged. Jagjit was on his way to Transport Nagar from his house and on the basis of this forged permit was on his way out of Punjab.
The FIR was registered, investigation carried out and upon its completion a challan was presented in the court. During trial of the case, the accused pleaded false implication. Additional public prosecutor for the state pleaded punishment to the accused on the basis of prosecution evidence.
Counsel for the accused laid emphasis on the cross-examination of both inspector Rajwant Singh and ASI Rachhpal Singh, wherein they had admitted that neither any independent witness or shopkeeper was made party in the investigation, nor was any action taken against any person who had refused to so despite the fact that the witnesses admitted in their cross-examination that the place saw a lot of traffic at any point of the day and there were several shops in the vicinity.
The contention failed to gather merit with the court and it observed that simply because no independent witness was made party by the police there was no ground to discard the entire prosecution version.
Counsel for the accused contended that Rajwant Singh had admitted in his cross examination that at the time of arrest of the accused he was not sure whether the permit(s) seized were forged or not. Even ASI Satish Kumar had admitted in his cross-examination that merely by looking at the permit(s) no one could comment on the genuinity. The court while turning down the contention of the defence held that it was never a case of the prosecution that the investigating agency knew beforehand that the permits were forged.
On October 4, 2014, division number six police had booked Kanwaljit Singh of New Shivaji Nagar, his father Inderjit Singh and Jagjit Singh of Lalto Khurd under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of the IPC for allegedly forging permits for trucks.
As per the prosecution, while on patrol inspector Rajwant Singh received information that accused Kanwaljit Singh and Inderjit Singh were engaged in forging permits for trucks and anyone desirous of obtaining a permit for a truck was approaching them. In return for money less than the official fee for preparation of a permit, they were forging permits and dishonestly delivered them by disclosing them as true permits and thus caused huge financial loss to the state. Accused Jagjit Singh, who owned a vehicle bearing no. PB 10 CL 9343 was known to the accused and had got prepared a forged permit for his aforesaid vehicle from them and was well aware about the fact that the permit was forged. Jagjit was on his way to Transport Nagar from his house and on the basis of this forged permit was on his way out of Punjab.
The FIR was registered, investigation carried out and upon its completion a challan was presented in the court. During trial of the case, the accused pleaded false implication. Additional public prosecutor for the state pleaded punishment to the accused on the basis of prosecution evidence.
Counsel for the accused laid emphasis on the cross-examination of both inspector Rajwant Singh and ASI Rachhpal Singh, wherein they had admitted that neither any independent witness or shopkeeper was made party in the investigation, nor was any action taken against any person who had refused to so despite the fact that the witnesses admitted in their cross-examination that the place saw a lot of traffic at any point of the day and there were several shops in the vicinity.
The contention failed to gather merit with the court and it observed that simply because no independent witness was made party by the police there was no ground to discard the entire prosecution version.
Counsel for the accused contended that Rajwant Singh had admitted in his cross examination that at the time of arrest of the accused he was not sure whether the permit(s) seized were forged or not. Even ASI Satish Kumar had admitted in his cross-examination that merely by looking at the permit(s) no one could comment on the genuinity. The court while turning down the contention of the defence held that it was never a case of the prosecution that the investigating agency knew beforehand that the permits were forged.
