Rajinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr.

1
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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

2
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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amount therein, which was subsequently withdrawn by him.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

3
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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

4
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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

5
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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

6
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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

7
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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

8
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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
RAJAN
2026.09.10 16:22 relevant consideration. The law envisages such an
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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

10
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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

11
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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

12
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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
RAJAN
2026.09.10 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
sentence, the Court is required to balance the nature of the

13
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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

14
CRR-1270-2010 (O&M)
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