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