Criminal Revision No.544 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.544 of 1996 Date of decision: 11th January, 2010 Pritam Gir .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vivek Goyal, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, D.A.G, Punjab, for the respondent-State. A.N.JINDAL, J.(ORAL) The accused-petitioner Pritam Gir, Janak Raj, Parkash Chand and Amar Nath(deceased)(non petitioners), were tried for the offences under Section 406, 120-B IPC and were sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for 10 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/-. The appeal preferred by Parkash Chand, Janak Raj has been accepted by the appellate court. Since, Amar Nath expired during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, his appeal stood abated. As regards Pritam Gir's appeal, he was acquitted under Section 120-B IPC and was convicted under Section 406 IPC. Criminal Revision No.544 of 1996 2 There is a Samadh in village Kulwano. The land measuring 55 Kanals 8 marlas is owned by the Samadh. Pritam Gir was recorded as Mohitmim(who looks after the affairs of the Samadh). On 8.07.1988, all the four accused as referred to above entered into conspiracy pursuant to which Pritam Gir executed a sale deed of the entire land belonging to Samadh in favour of Parkash Chand for a consideration of Rs. 70,000/-. Sale deed was executed and registered which was attested by Janak Raj Sarpanch of the Village as a marginal witness as well as Amar Nath since deceased. Amar Nath and Parkash Chand(vendee) are the real brothers whereas Janak Raj attesting witness is the son of Parkash Chand. Thus, finding that Pritam Gir had committed breach of trust and misappropriated the property belonging to Samadh in connivance with and conspiracy of the other accused, a case under Section 420/120-B IPC was registered against them and was then investigated. Ultimately all the four accused were challaned, charges were framed against them, under Section 406, 120-B IPC. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined PW-1 Darshan Singh, PW-2 Bhagwan Dass, PW-3 Hardarshan Singh, PW-4 Madan Lal, PW-5 Rattan Lal, PW-6 Ram Singh, PW-7 Mehudin, PW-8 Amolak Ram and PW-9 Kirpal Singh. In their statements, recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, they admitted all the facts including the execution of the sale deed by Pritam Gir in favour of Parkash Chand. Janak Raj and Amar Nath admittedly, had attested the Criminal Revision No.544 of 1996 3 sale deeds as witnesses. However, they denied that they entered into any criminal conspiracy. The accused Pritam Gir took the plea that property was under mortgage with Nanna Ram and Ram Saran for the last 25 years. Panchayat had got a compromise effected and asked Pritam Gir to pay Rs. 85,000/- to Nanna Ram and hence, in order to get the property redeemed, he sold the same to Parkash Chand and received a sum of Rs. 70,000/- and after adding more money from his pocket, paid it to Nanna Ram. He has proved the compromise and receipt signed by Nanna Ram. In this regard, by way of proving the documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, similar pleas were also raised by the other accused. On scrutiny, the learned trial court convicted all the accused and sentenced them accordingly. Amar Nath had died during the pendency of appeal. Parkash Chand and Janak Raj were acquitted by the appellate court. As such, I have left only with the appeal preferred by Pritam Gir. Admittedly, Pritam Gir was the Mohitmim of the “Samadh” and property was standing in the name of the “Samadh”. In the copies of the Jamabandies PW-4/A, DW-4/B, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.D3 and khasra girdwari Ex.D/4, the property in question is shown to be ownership of Samadh and under the management of Pritam Gir. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, Pritam Gir could not be treated as owner of the property, his guilty intention and dishonest action could be revealed from the sale deed Ex. PW-3/A, executed on 8.07.1988, and registered on 12.07.1988, wherein Pritam Gir described Criminal Revision No.544 of 1996 4 himself as son of Harchand Gir, instead of chela, however in the record, he is recorded as Chela of Harchand Gir. As such, it could be easily inferred that Pritam Gir made wrong representation. In order to prove the dishonest intention of Pritam Gir to misappropriate the property, prosecution examined PW-3 Hardarshan Singh, Sub Registrar, Patran, who had attested the sale deed. He disclosed that no copy of jamabandi was attached to the sale deed at the time. However, the petitioner had produced the other copy of jamabandi, wherein Pritam Gir showed himself to be the son of Harchand Gir. It appears that the accused-petitioner withheld the original jamabandi and got the sale deed registered on the basis of forged jamabandi. The execution of the sale deed has not been denied. The petitioner also did not deny having attested the sale deed. Since, the accused Janak Raj and Parkash Chand have been acquitted, therefore, it would be needless to comment upon their conduct and their complicity in the commission of the crime but it would be suffice to say that the vendee and the witnesses are none else but close relatives inter-se as it has been already mentioned that Janak Raj is the son of vendee. Parkash Chand and Amar Nath are real brothers. However, this court needs to take notice of the fact that the same land which was under mortgage for Rs. 85,000/- could not be sold for Rs. 70,000/-. The petitioner in order to grab money committed breach of trust and sold the land which was not owned by him and he was just manager of the Idol Criminal Revision No.544 of 1996 5 and could act only act in good management of this 'Dera'. All this indicates that the fabricated and forged sale deed though he was not competent to sell the property, no legal necessity has also been shown. Resultantly, it appears to be full proof case which could suggest no bonafide on the part of the petitioner for entering into sale transaction of the property relating to “Samadh”. The sentence awarded qua him appears to be already on the lower side and no further leniency could be extended to such person. Resultantly, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 11th January, 2010 Shivani Kaushik