Ms
Asha Sharma (Ex IAS) and former IC in the Haryana SIC
has been sentenced to 3 years RI and Rs 2000 fine :
(The complete judgment is attached)
If she could do this as an IAS officer to records pertaining to her own Mothers property,
just imagine what damage she would have done when she was Information Commissioner -
who has powers to summon any file from a public authority.
33. With these observations, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts that accused Smt.Asha Sharma had tampered the record of estate Office when the same was delivered to her.
34. The next matter which comes for consideration is to book the liability of the accused as per the provisions of IPC. The accused, herein, was handed over the estate office file and she had returned the same after taking out the original affidavit of Raghbir Singh, joint affidavit of herself, Raj Rani and Rabinder Singh along with the attested copy of Will of Col.Balwant Singh and replacing the same with photocopies of the same. Though she has been charge sheeted under Section 406, 420 IPC, however, the said sections do not comprehend with the Actus reus of the whole incident. But as far as replacing the attested/ original documents with photocopies is concerned, certainly the same amounts to diminishing the value and utility of the papers so as to cause wrongful loss to complainant Smt. Chanderkala, who had placed reliance upon the said documents to support her claim and has, thereby, committed mischief with the same, punishable under section 426 of Indian Penal Code.
35. As far as crossing the draft letter bearing memo no. 38392/RPD/15629/G IV dated 20.11.1995 and crossing the signatures of Assistant Estate Officer on the correspondence dated 21.7.1995 is concerned the same is covered within Section 464, secondly clause, IPC, whereby accused without having any lawful authority dishonestly altered the said documents and has thereby forged the same. Consequently, for having canceling the said documents she has certainly made herself liable for committing forgery of the public record kept by the public servant which is punishable under Section 466 IPC.
36. As far as the essential ingredients of Section 406,420,468 and 477 IPC , for which the charge has been framed, are concerned, the same have not been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the accused is acquitted thereunder and is held guilty under Section 426 and 466 of IPC. Let she be heard on the quantum of sentence. Pronounced in open court Pronounced on: 01.09.2016 Pavleen Singh Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh.
===============================
QUESTION OF SENTENCE
Present: Sh.Loveneesh Mehmi, APP for the state.
Convict Asha Sharma with counsel Sh. Raman Mahajan, Advocate.
The convict has submitted that she is the first offendor and has prayed for taking a lenient view for her being an old lady and a senior IAS officer. APP for the State, however, has controverted the said plea asserting that strict action be taken against her being an offendor while being at a very responsible post.
2. Heard the ld. APP for the state and convict in person. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no leniency can be granted in such like offences. Further, after giving careful thought to the prayer so made by the convict viz-a-viz the gravity of the offence proved to have been committed by her, this court is not inclined to be unduly lenient towards her for giving her concession of probation. Accordingly, convict Asha Sharma is, hereby, sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment as under:-
Sr.no Name of the Convict Under Section Rigorous Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment 1. Asha Sharma 426 IPC 466 IPC Three months (R.I.) Three years (R.I.) Rs.1000/- Rs.1000/- One month One month Pavleen Singh ,JMIC, Chd. State Vs Asha Sharma 22
3. Period of imprisonment already undergone by the convict during inquiry, investigation or trial of the case, if any, be set off from the substantive sentences to be undergone by her. All these sentences shall run concurrently. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost. Bail bond, surety bonds of accused and supurdari bonds stand discharged. Case property be dealt as per rules. File be consigned to the judicial record room after due compilation. Pronounced in open court on:- 01.09.2016 Pavleen Singh Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh.
Present: Sh.Lovneesh Mehmi, APP for the state.
Accused on bail assisted by counsel Sh.Raman Mahajan, Adv.
Arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date accused is convicted and sentenced accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court on:-01.09.2016
Pavleen Singh Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh.
===========
Present : Convict with counsel .
At this stage counsel for the convict moved applications under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of the sentence of the convict. Notice given. Heard. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the sentence of the convict is suspended upto 30.09.2016 on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs.70,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Requisite bonds furnished, accepted and attested. Bail bonds be separated from the file and be put up on 30.09.2016 for further proceedings. 
No comments:
Post a Comment