Sharvan Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Sharvan Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jul 29, 1985

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/643948

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/643948
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: A.N.Sen and; R.S. Pathak, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 29, 1985
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 1976
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [] In a double member Parliamentary constituency one seat was reserved for the scheduled tribes and the other was general. Four persons filed their nominations for the election, G 1 and G 2 for the general seat and S1 and S2 for the reserved seat. At the polls the number of votes received by the candidates were i...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 205, 465, 467, 468 and 471; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 360

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sharvan Kumar

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 205, 465, 467, 468 and 471; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 360
Reported In: AIR1985SC1663; 1986CriLJ15; 1985(2)Crimes875(SC); 1985(2)SCALE665; (1985)3SCC658; 1985(17)LC885(SC)

Excerpt

.....a constituency. when a candidate offers himself for election in a constituency, he does so for election to fill a seat in the constituency. therefore, if a candidate wanted to contest both the seats he had to file two nomination papers one for the general seat and the other for the reserved seat and he had to make two deposits. section 8(2) of the delimitation commission act, 1952 destroyed the effect of s. 54 of the act. caste in hinduism had its origin not on the basis of birth but of guna, karma and subhavana (quality, actions and character). caste is nothing but division of labour. hinduism might have become static at one time; it is no longer so and it is wrong to say that caste is dependent upon birth and not on kayma i.e. action. s. 2 had by his actions raised himself to the position of a kshatriya and he was no longer a member of the scheduled tribe or caste. - the appellant then forged the necessary endorsement regarding identification and attestation of the sureties as well as the signatures of another advocate, shri mangal singh, on the surety bonds. it was vehemently urged before the high court that the appellant was a misguided young man, that he had no previous conviction against him and that he should, therefore, be released on probation of good conduct. 4. we have heard learned counsel for the parties on this appeal, and we are satisfied that the high court is right in maintaining the conviction of the appellant. we are also satisfied that this is not a case where the benefit of section 360 of the crpc should be extended to the appellant. the offence is a serious one and we do not think that the appellant should be entitled to release on probation of good conduct......the offence under section 471 of the indian penal code.3. in appeal before the high court, the only question raised was whether the appellant had forged the endorsements regarding identification and attestation of the sureties and the signatures of the advocate. the high court examined the entire evidence on the record, and found that the case in fact fell squarely under section 468 of the indian penal code. however, it did not disturb the conviction in respect of the offence under section 465 of the indian penal code. it was vehemently urged before the high court that the appellant was a misguided young man, that he had no previous conviction against him and that he should, therefore, be released on probation of good conduct. it was pointed out that the appellant was about 22 to 23 years of age when he committed the offence. the high court rejected the prayer and dismissed the appeal.4. we have heard learned counsel for the parties on this appeal, and we are satisfied that the high court is right in maintaining the conviction of the appellant. we are also satisfied that this is not a case where the benefit of section 360 of the cr pc should be extended to the appellant. the offence is a serious one and we do not think that the appellant should be entitled to release on probation of good conduct. but having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the circumstance that the offence was committed as long ago as 1968 and the appellant has already suffered sufficiently, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him to the period already undergone. we are told that the appellant has already served nine months in jail.5. the appeal is allowed in so far only that while we maintain the conviction of the appellant we reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone. the appellant is on bail, and his bail bond shall stand cancelled.

Full Judgment

R.S. Pathak, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant and affirming his conviction and sentence for an offence Under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The appellant was the clerk of an advocate, Shri Prem Ghand Gupta, practising at Bulandshahr. One Kalli was an accused in a criminal case, and when his Pairokar was unable to persuade a Mohanir, Jaswant Singh, to secure Kalli's release on bail, the pairokar approached the appellant for that purpose. The advocate, Shri Prem Chand Gupta, moved an application for bail, and the application for bail was granted by the Judicial Magistrate, Shri Khem Singh, on October 16, 1968. The appellant prepared surety bonds and presented them before Shri Prem Chand Gupta in order that the advocate should identify the sureties and attest their status. Apparently because Shri Gupta did not know the sureties, he refused to identify them or attest their status. The appellant then forged the necessary endorsement regarding identification and attestation of the sureties as well as the signatures of another advocate, Shri Mangal Singh, on the surety bonds. He presented the surety bonds before the Judicial Magistrate, who believing the endorsement to be genuine issued a warrant for Kalli's release. It appears that Kalli happened to meet the Moharrir, Jaswant Singh, and disclosed that he had secured his release on bail through Shri Mangal Singh. When Shri Mangal Singh came to know from the Moharrir of this conversation, he suspected foul play and filed an application before the judicial Magistrate asserting that he had not identified or attested the bonds on the basis of which Kalli had been released. The Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of Shri Mangal Singh, and after making a preliminary inquiry he filed a complaint for the prosecution of the appellant. The appellant was committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial for offences under. Sections 205, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the appellant admitted that he had prepared the bail bonds and the affidavits and that the sureties had affixed their thumb marks on the documents in his presence but he denied that the endorsement regarding identification and attestation of the sureties and the signatures of Shri Mangal Singh on the bail bonds had been made by him. The trial court found the appellant guilty and convicted him Under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him under the former charge to undergo imprisonment for a period of one and half years. No separate sentence was awarded in respect of the offence Under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In appeal before the High Court, the only question raised was whether the appellant had forged the endorsements regarding identification and attestation of the sureties and the signatures of the advocate. The High Court examined the entire evidence on the record, and found that the case in fact fell squarely Under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it did not disturb the conviction in respect of the offence Under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. It was vehemently urged before the High Court that the appellant was a misguided young man, that he had no previous conviction against him and that he should, therefore, be released on probation of good conduct. It was pointed out that the appellant was about 22 to 23 years of age when he committed the offence. The High Court rejected the prayer and dismissed the appeal.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on this appeal, and we are satisfied that the High Court is right in maintaining the conviction of the appellant. We are also satisfied that this is not a case where the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr PC should be extended to the appellant. The offence is a serious one and we do not think that the appellant should be entitled to release on probation of good conduct. But having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the circumstance that the offence was committed as long ago as 1968 and the appellant has already suffered sufficiently, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him to the period already undergone. We are told that the appellant has already served nine months in jail.

5. The appeal is allowed in so far only that while we maintain the conviction of the appellant we reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The appellant is on bail, and his bail bond shall stand cancelled.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1985 Same Parties Sharvan Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh Same Subject Criminal Same Judge A.N.Sen and; R.S. Pathak, JJ. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 205, 465, 467, 468 and 471...

Criminal