-1- Criminal Revision No.668 of 2000. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.668 of 2000. Date of Decision: March 10 , 2010. Dalbir Singh and another ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate, amicus curiae, for the petitioners. Mr.K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners Dalbir Singh and Amarjit Singh were convicted by the trial Court under Sections 120-B,467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and on each count, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for -2- Criminal Revision No.668 of 2000. two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence, as recorded by the trial Court, was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition by petitioners Dalbir Singh and Amarjit Singh. I have heard Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate, amicus curiae, for the petitioners and Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, and have gone through the records of the case. The instant case was registered against petitioner Dalbir Singh and his son Amarjit Singh on the written complaint made by Ram Lal Bhandari (complainant) addressed to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarn Taran. As per allegations against the petitioners, the land measuring 57 Kanals 18 Marlas of the complainant had been got transferred in the name of petitioner Amarjit Singh by petitioner Dalbir Singh by way of a sale deed by producing some other person in place of complainant Ram Lal Bhandari. The signatures of the complainant were also forged. The petitioners, thus, not only impersonated the complainant but also forged his signatures. Complainant Ram Lal Bhandari (P.W.1), while appearing in Court, deposed that he had not sold the land in dispute to the accused persons nor he executed any sale deed in their favour. He further stated that the accused had falsely prepared the sale deed. He proved the application/complaint (Exhibit P.A) given to the Sub Divisional magistrate against the accused. -3- Criminal Revision No.668 of 2000. Kulwant Singh (P.W.2), who at the relevant time was posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarn Taran also duly proved the application (Exhibit P.A) of the complainant, which was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Policed, Tarn Taran, on the basis of which the instant case was registered against the accused. On the basis of this forged sale deed, the accused had also filed a civil suit against the complainant for declaration. That suit was later on withdrawn by the accused. R.S. Bal (P.W.5) deposed about comparison of specimen thumb impression of complainant Ram Lal Bhandari taken in the Court on 12.4.1994 with the disputed thumb impression on the registration side of the counterfoil of the sale deed dated 2.6.1989, in the register of Sub Registrar, Tarn Taran, on page No.42, document No.1075 in Bahi No.2281 and he gave the opinion that these were of different persons and did not tally with the specimen thumb impressions of the complainant. It shows that the sale deed did not bear the thumb impression of the complainant. Copy of the Jamabandi (Exhibit P.B) shows complainant Ram Lal Bhandari as owner of the land in question. No doubt, the Investigating Officer had not been examined in this case, but it hardly affects the veracity of the prosecution case as it is based solely on documentary evidence, as discussed above. It is also worth mentioning here that accused-petitioner Dalbir Singh, while appearing in the Court of Mr. S.S. Sandhu, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, had made statement that he was not ready to part with his specimen thumb impression. Statement of Dalbir Singh (accused) was recorded in this regard -4- Criminal Revision No.668 of 2000. which is Exhibit P.W.4/A. Mr.S.S. Sandhu, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran had appeared in the witness box as P.W.4 and proved the statement of accused Dalbir Singh (Exhibit P.W.4/A) and application Exhibit P.W.4/B. The fact that Dalbir Singh refused to give his thumb impression, apparently, goes against him and compels the Court to draw an adverse inference against him. Still further, no person of the name of Joginder Singh son of Harnam Singh existed in the village who was shown as an attesting witness of the sale deed. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. March 10 , 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE