Crl.Misc. No.M-25726 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25726 of 2009 Date of Decision:July 14, 2010 Om Parkash Mittal ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab ** Sabina, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing judgment dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P1) and order dated 13.7.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sesions Judge Sangrur, respectively. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “3. In brief, the prosecution story is that FIR No. 228 dated 11.5.2000 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC was registered at police station Sunam at the instance of the revisionist/complainant Crl.Misc. No.M-25726 of 2009 2 Om Parkash Mittal wherein the complainant/revisionist has alleged that in the year 1988, he got a loan of Rs.2,30,000/- from Punjab Financial Corporation for the purchase of truck and after purchasing tuck bearing no. PCT-9966, the same was registered by the District Transport Officer, Sangrur in the name of the complainant/revisionist. It has been further alleged by the complainant/revisionist in the FIR that after five months from obtaining the loan, due to accident, his leg was fractured and in May,1992, he gave the said truck to respondent No.2 Dhani Ram son of Chand Singh resident of Ram Jheri with the intends that said Dhani Ram will pay the intallments towards loan taken from Punjab Financial Corporation. It has also been alleged in the FIR that the accused namely Dhani Ram, respondent No.1 herein never paid any intallment to Punjab Financial Corporation and due to non payment of loan amount, Punjab Financial Corporation got the complainant/revisionist arrested and he was sent to jail at Sangrur and after releasing from the jail, the complainant/revisionist came to know that said Dhani Ram has sold the truck in question to respondent no.1 who thereafter has further sold the truck to Jarnail Singh after affixing forged number i.e. PB-11F-3028. It has been further alleged in the FIR that he had not given any affidavit or power of attorney to respondent/accused Dhani Ram regarding the truck bearing no. PB-11F3028 is running on the forged number. The revisionist/complainant submitted before the police that both the accused/respondent were cheating him and were bent upon to grab Crl.Misc. No.M-25726 of 2009 3 his truck and they have sold the said truck with forged documents. On his complaint, investigation was carried out and accordingly, case under Sections 420.467.468/471/120-B IPC was registered against both the accused/respondents. During investigation of the case, on 13.5.2000, the truck bearing No. PB-11F-3028 was found stranded on Drain Bridge near Bhangawali and on searching the cabin, duplicate RC bearing No. DL-IG-8891 in the name of Karnail Singh son of Chand was found. It was also found that the said truck was further transferred in the name of Jarnail Singh son of Mohinder Singh. The truck alongwith RC was taken into possession and the IL has made necessary investigation from the concerned officials and also inspected the STA record and it was found that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of Rajdhani Interstate Transport Co. having Chasis no.364052564191 and Engine No.692DO2555154 and papers were taken into possession and in view of the record of the DTO Patiala, the forged documents were prepared by Karnail Singh alongwith Lakhmir Singh Chada son of Nanak Singh resident of Patiala by handing over Rs.30,000/- and the number of RC was changed from PCT-9966 to Pb-11F-3028. On completion of the investigation and necessary formalities, challan against both the accused/respondents was filed.: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Learned trial Court has observed in the impugned order that PW3 Om Parkash had himself stated in his examination in chief that he had Crl.Misc. No.M-25726 of 2009 4 taken one truck bearing No.PCT 9966 by taking loan from Punjab Financial Corporation for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/-. The registration cover of the truck was in his name. In the year 1992, Om Parkash suffered fracture of his leg and he handed over the truck to Dhani Ram for returning the loan installments. However, Dhani Ram failed to return the loan installments and sold the truck to Jarnail Singh by preparing forged number in connivance with Karnail singh. Om Parkash, in his cross-examination, deposed that there was no writing between Dhani Ram and himself and registration cover of truck still exists in his name and had not been transferred in the name of Dhani Ram. He did not know whether somebody else was using truck. He had never seen the truck in possession of Karnail Singh. He did not remember who had told him that a forged number had been affixed on the truck. He had not moved any application to the District Transport Officer that the documents relating to the truck have been forged. PW1 Ranjit Singh and PW2 Daljit Singh were declared hostile and they did not support the prosecution case regarding forging of the documents. Lakhmir Singh Chadha in connivance with Karnail Singh had prepared the forged documents of truck No. PB11F 3028. PW Piara Singh also did not support the prosecution case to the effect that the amount had been handed over by the accused Karnail Singh for changing registration cover. PW8 Gulab Singh, PW12 Lela Singh had failed to prove that the agreement dated 16.6.1999 had been executed by Karnail Singh in connivance with Dhandi Ram with regard to truck No. PB11F 3028. The learned trial Court gave a finding that the complainant had failed to establish that truck PB11F 3028 belonged to him. The previous owner of vehicle No. PB11F 3028 was Baljit Singh and not Om Parkash as was evident from the testimonies of Crl.Misc. No.M-25726 of 2009 5 PW5 Gurdial Singh and PW7 Gurdarshan Singh. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to connect truck bearing No. PB11 3028 with truck No. PCT 9966 and truck No. DLIG 8891 with truck No. PCT 9966 as the previous owner of truck No. PB11F 3028 was Baljit Singh and truck No. DLIG 8891 was running in the name of Rajdhani Interstate Transport Company. PW6 Surjit Singh had also not supported the prosecution case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, uphold the order of the trial Court as it was a case of no evidence. Complainant had failed to establish his case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the trial Court. Hence no ground for interference is made out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. Learned counsel has failed to establish that there has been any miscarriage of justice. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 14, 2010 arya