Crl. Appeal No. 445-MA of 2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 445-MA of 2010 Date of Decision: Sept.7,2010 Janta Singh ..................................................................... Appellant Versus Teja Singh and others ................................................. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh Present: Mr. Manjit Singh Uppal, Advocate for the appellant. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The complainant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 15.1.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, vide which the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant-Janta Singh and accused Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased a tractor Swraj-735 jointly after raising a loan from the Punjab National Bank and the same was duly registered. The tractor was being used by the parties commonly for cultivating their lands as per the need of each of the parties. Some time after purchasing the tractor, the complainant inquired about the whereabouts of the tractor from the accused. He was informed that the tractor has been sent Crl. Appeal No. 445-MA of 2010 [ 2 ] out of the village for cultivating the land of some relatives of the respondents. As the whereabouts of the tractor were not known for a long period, the complainant had doubts and started making inquiry to find out the whereabouts of the tractor. He came to know that the respondents had sold the tractor to one Buta Singh R/o Village Bhudan, Tehsil Malerkotla, without re-paying the loan amount and without obtaining the consent of the complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa. However, no action was taken on his complaint. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the trial Court and after recording of the preliminary evidence the accused were summoned and were charged under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. In order to sustain the conviction under Section 420 IPC, it was incumbent for the complainant to prove that the accused had deceived him and that they had dishonestly sold the tractor. However, the complainant led no evidence apart from his representative to show that the respondents had deceived him. In order to sustain the conviction under Section 467/468 IPC the complainant had to prove that the respondents had forged the documents and the forgery was committed with the intention to cheat him. However, the complainant led no evidence to show that the documents of sale of the tractor were forged in any manner. Similar is the position with regard to the offence under Section 471 IPC. The only evidence led by the accused in order to prove the allegation of forgery and fraud was the statement of the complainant Janta Singh who appeared as CW1. In his cross-examination, he specifically Crl. Appeal No. 445-MA of 2010 [ 3 ] admitted that he came to know regarding the sale of the tractor from a dealer in his village whose name he did not know. The complainant also did not produce the dealer in evidence. Thus, the bald statement of the complainant was based on a hearsay evidence. The complainant had further alleged that the respondents had sold the tractor to one Buta Singh. However, even Buta Singh was not produced in the Court, but in fact, Buta Singh had appeared as DW1 and he specifically stated in his cross-examination that it was the complainant who had sold the tractor to him. In view of the above, the complainant completely failed to produce ample evidence to bring home the guilt against the respondents. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the respondents. Accordingly, leave to appeal is declined. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE 7.9.2010 ( NAWAB SINGH ) Rupi JUDGE