Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RANDHIR SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/01/2000
BENCH:
S.R.Babu, R.C.Lahoti
JUDGMENT:
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India challenging conviction under Section
193 Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a proceeding arising in Writ
Petition (Criminal) Nos. 356-57 of 1993. On January 17,
1996 an order was made by this Court on receipt of reports
from the District Judge, Faridabad and the Central Bureau of
Investigation and after issue of a notice as to why the
petitioner should not be convicted for forgery of signatures
of Shri M.S. Ahlawat, Superintendent of Police on the
affidavits dated November 2, 1993 and November 5, 1993 and
also for contempt of this Court for furnishing false
evidence. Thereafter, this Court passed an order on January
17, 1996 whereby the petitioner was held to have committed
the offences under Section 193 IPC and he was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for three months. It is brought to our
notice that the petitioner has served out this period of
imprisonment. Along with the petitioner Shri M.S. Ahlawat,
Superintendent of Police, was also convicted in similar
circumstances. He filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 353
of 1997 challenging his conviction under Section 193 IPC.
On October 27, 1999, we allowed the said Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 353 of 1997 by setting aside the conviction
under Section 193 IPC. By accepting the plea as to
non-compliance with the procedure required under Section 195
Cr.P.C. read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. and also on account
of want of original jurisdiction of this Court to try a
criminal offence under Section 193 IPC, we held that the
punishment was liable to be quashed. The situation in the
present case is identical on this aspect. Following the
said judgment and for the reasons stated therein the
sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 193 IPC
is also liable to be quashed.
At this stage, the petitioner has filed an affidavit,
inter alia, stating :- That I undertake to this Honble
Court that in case my conviction U/s 193 IPC is set-aside I
will not claim any compensation or initiate any proceedings
before this Honble Court or any other court arising out of
my conviction U/s 193 IPC or for the sentence I had
undergone pursuant to the said conviction, save and except
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
using any order passed by this Honble Court, setting aside
my conviction U/s 193 IPC in any proceedings initiated by
State in relation to my service in the Haryana Police and/or
any departmental proceedings.
Considering the special features of the case, we do
not think that this is a fit case to direct the filing of a
complaint in the competent court as envisaged by Section 340
Cr.P.C. because the petitioner has already undergone the
sentence imposed upon him for an offence under Section 193
IPC although set aside now by this order.
Therefore, we set aside the order made in Writ
Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 356-57 of 1993 convicting the
petitioner under Section 193 IPC and is recalled. It is
made clear that this order will not enable the petitioner to
claim any compensation or initiate any proceedings in any
court arising out of his conviction under Section 193 IPC
except to use the same in any proceeding initiated against
the petitioner departmentally regarding his services