In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.1397 of 2004 Date of decision: December 21, 2010 Harbans Singh .. Petitioner vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Criminal Revision No. 1412 of 2004 Saravjit Singh and another .. Petitioners vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Jainender Saini, Advocate for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1397 of 2004. Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 1412 of 2004. Mr. R.K. Takkar, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent-State. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of two revision petition No.1397 of 2004 filed by Harbans Singh and 1412 of 2004 filed by Saravjit Singh and Paramjit Singh against the judgment dated 8.7.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. Both the petitions having arisen out of the same judgment are decided by the common judgment. The petitioner Harbans Singh was the then Patwari of village Daulatpur and the petitioner Saravjit Singh and Paramjit Singh were the beneficiaries of the tampering of the record. A case was registered against them on the basis of the memo No. 1519 dated 9.5.1989 Ex.PA, containing the allegations that Arjan Singh etc. were cultivating the land since long and they had also cultivated the land for he crop year Rabi 1988. However, Harbans Singh Patwari changed entries in khasra girdawri without their Criminal Revision No.1397 of 2004 -2- consent in the name of Saravjit Singh and Paramjit Singh that too prior to the commencement of the season for change of girdawri, thus Harbans Singh in connivance with the other accused had committed forgery by tampering the record. On holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 24.4.1989 had also found them guilty of preparing false record while changing the girdawri in their names whereas originally Girdawri was in the name of Ram Piari and Arjan Singh etc. even when the civil litigation with regard to the said land was pending between the parties. Registration of the FIR Ex.PW6/A was followed by investigation. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the accused were charged accordingly. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined K.K.Gupta, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra (PW1) who proved the letter Ex.PA written by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra to the police for registration of the FIR. Krishan Lal Bill Clerk (PW2) from the office of Sadar Kanungo Branch of D.C. Office Kurukshetra proved the enquiry report Ex.PW2/A and the statement of the complainant Ex.PW/B and that of Bir Singh, Ram Piari and Devender Kumar Patwari Ex.PW2/C to Ex.PW2/E. Arjan Singh complainant appeared as PW-3, Devender Kumar Patwari (PW4), Ram Piari (PW5) and DSP Anil Kumar (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. The trial resulted into conviction. The appeals preferred by them were also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioners have reiterated the arguments while stating that the prosecution has failed to prove the tampering of the record and nothing has been brought on record to show if any entry was illegally made by the accused Harbans Singh. In this regard, it is observed that Arjan Singh while appearing in the witness box as PW-3 has categorically stated that he along with Sukhraj, Harcharan Singh, Amar Singh etc. owned about 60 acres of land and they were cultivating the same for the last 40 years. The revenue entries in their favour were existing since very beginning and the revenue entries Criminal Revision No.1397 of 2004 -3- for Rabi 1989 were got changed by Saravjit Singh and Paramjit Singh accused in connivance with the Revenue Patwari with dishonest intention to cause loss to them and benefit to Saravjit Singh and Paramjit Singh. They were neither informed of the said change nor they were called upon before making any entry pertaining to the said change. Devender Kumar Patwari (PW4) has further testified that accused Harbans Singh had made the change in the year 1989. Prior to the making of the change the entries were in the name of Ram Piari, Ranga and Arjun for Rabi 1989, for which the complainant had made complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra. It has been further stated by him that Ram Piari, Arjan Singh and Ranga are cultivating the land. Ram Piari (PW5) has also corroborated the testimony of Arjan Singh (PW3). Devender Kumar Patwari (PW4) during cross examination has further disclosed about the procedure of change of Girdawri while stating that the change could be made in the record in the presence and with the consent of the parties. Both the courts below have also reached the conclusion that Harbans Singh changed the girdawri for Rabi 1989 much prior to the period of commencement of the survey with regard to khasra girdawri in the name of Saravjit Singh and Paramjit Singh without inviting objections from the complainant party. It is also concluded from the Punjab Revenue Act and the Rules framed thereunder that the Patwari was not competent to change the khasra girdawri himself and he could do so only during the appropriate period of survey that too with the consent of both the parties. He was supposed to make the entry in the rapat roznamcha for onward approval of Kanungo of the area and ultimately on the approval of the concerned Tehsildar. Harbans Singh did not do so and over stepped the procedure, in order to cause benefit to Paramjit Singh and Saravjit Singh and wrongful loss to the complainant party created. Similarly, Saravjit Singh and Paramjit Singh, who were the beneficiaries of the wrong entries cannot be excluded as without their connivance no record could be changed, as such, they have been rightly held guilty of the offence for which they have been charged. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners have sought indulgence of this court on the quantum of sentence. Admittedly, the occurrence took place way back in the year 1989 and they have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings Criminal Revision No.1397 of 2004 -4- pending in the court since then. Accused Harbans Singh has already undergone five months and five days of the substantive sentence whereas accused Saravjit Singh and Paramjit Singh have undergone 2- ½ months each of the substantive sentence. Besides, accused Harbans Singh has also been dismissed from service. Admittedly, the complainant is now in possession of the land in question. It appears that the khasra girdawries which have been wrongly made must have been corrected by now. Under the circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to take some lenient view in the case. Resultantly, both the petitions stand dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by them without any alteration in the sentence of fine. December 21, 2010 (A. N. Jindal) deepak Judge