Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2005 Date of Decision: 31.03.2011 Bahadur Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Petitioner with Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate and Ms. Minkshi Poswal, Advocate. Mr. Rajive Sharma, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Union Territory. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated August 28th, 2004 passed Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, affirming the judgment dated November 30th, 2000 of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 448 of Indian Penal Code and was ordered to be released on probation. 2. Kirpal Singh was owner of House No.2411, Mariwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Bahadur Singh – petitioner, an Advocate of this Court, was his tenant having two rooms in his occupancy on the first floor (for short, “the premises”) since 1983. Narinder Pal Singh purchased the said house on June 7th, 1996, filed complaint against the petitioner alleging that on May 6th, 1998, petitioner, after breaking open the lock, entered the room on the first floor, which earlier was occupied by Bans Raj as tenant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that a false case was registered against the petitioner in order to put pressure on him to vacate the premises. 4. From the evidence adduced, it is culled that the Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2005 2 .. original owner of the house was Kirpal Singh. Bans Raj, who was allegedly shown to be tenant of a room adjoining the rooms under the occupancy of the petitioner, entered into an agreement (Mark DA) to purchase the house from Kirpal Singh, which he never purchased. Later on, on June 7th, 1996, vide sale deed, Narinder Pal Singh son of Surjit Singh – complainant (PW-3) purchased the house. Bans Raj was Additional Station House Officer of Police Station, Manimajra where the present case was registered. Surjit Singh, father of Narinder Pal Singh-complainant, was also posted in Chandigarh Police. The alleged compromise, which Narinder Pal Singh is shown to have entered into with Bans Raj, was fabricated just to pressurize the petitioner. It has been also alleged that now the petitioner has already vacated the premises. Petitioner is a practising Advocate in this Court since 1990. There has been no complaint of any sort against him earlier and after registration of the present case. 5. The facts and circumstances of this case suggest that the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was falsely involved in the present case to get him ejected from the premises under his occupancy as tenant, is convincing. Thus, both the Courts below fell in error in convicting the petitioner under Section 448 IPC and releasing him on probation. 6. In view of above, the revision is accepted. As a result thereof, the judgments of conviction passed by learned Courts below are set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge, under which, he was convicted. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 31.03.2011 som