Criminal Revision No.413 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.413 of 2006. Date of Decision : 22.2.2011. Yadwinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the judgment dated February 1st, 2006 of Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated April 17th, 2001 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawanshahar, whereby, petitioner along with his co-accused viz Manjit Singh, Ujagar Singh and Gurmukh Singh was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 120-B IPC RI for 2 years Rs.1000/- RI for 2 months 468 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.1000/- RI for 2 months 471 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.1000/- RI for 2 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. During pendency of appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujagar Singh and Gurmukh Singh died. Manjit Singh has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him, as stated by learned counsel counsel for the petitioner. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under:- Labh Singh father of Sher Singh-complainant (PW- 7) was owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 90 kanals 2 marlas situated in village Barnala Khurd, Police Station Rahon, Criminal Revision No.413 of 2006 2 District Nawanshahar. He migrated to Thailand in the year 1899. He died on July 11th, 1958 leaving behind Sher Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Surjit Kaur, Laj Kaur and Surinder Kaur. After the death of Labh Singh, the land was mutated in their name. All of them were residing abroad. The land was given on lease by Gurbachan Singh to Gurbax Singh-father of the petitioner in the year 1975. Vide sale-deeds dated February 17th, 1992 (Exhibit PW-1/A), February 21st, 1992 (Exhibit PW-1/B), March 3rd, 1992 (Exhibits PW-1/C), the aforesaid legal heirs of Labh Singh sold the land to the petitioner, his brother Ramanjit Singh and his uncle Manjit Singh. The sale-deeds were scribed by Anil Kumar, Deed-writer (PW-2). Ujagar Singh and Gurmukh Singh identified the vendor. 4. It is the case of the complainant that none of the vendors executed the sale deeds, fraud was played upon them in conspiracy with Harbhajan Singh brother-in-law (wife's brother) of his brother Gurbachan Singh. 5. On completion of investigation and other formalities, above named four persons along with Harbhajan Singh were challaned. Before commencement of the trial, Harbhajan Singh died. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgments of the Courts below on the ground that prosecution failed to prove that there was direct involvement of the petitioner in playing fraud with the vendors. It was added by him that the land in question was on lease with the father of the petitioner since 1975. Lease money was being paid to Harbhajan Singh regularly which he was paying to the vendors including Gurbachan Singh, brother of the complainant. The petitioner did not identify the vendors at the time of execution of the sale deeds. All the vendors were residing abroad since their childhood so, the question of knowing them by the petitioner did not arise. The vendors were duly identified by Ujagar Singh and Gurbax Singh. Not only that, during investigation it has also come in evidence that apart from the amount paid by the vendees at the time of execution of the sale deeds, an amount of Criminal Revision No.413 of 2006 3 Rs.19 lacs was also paid by them to Harbhajan Singh. To support the contention, reference has been made to the statements of Anil Kumar Deed writer (PW-2), Sher Singh-complainant (PW-7) and Laj Pat Singh-Investigator (PW-8). 7. Anil Kumar, Deed writer (PW-2) has deposed that he scribed the sale deeds (Exhibits PW-2/A to C) at the instance of the vendors and Harbhajan Singh. He was not known to the petitioner or any of the vendees. He did not know even vendors. Harbhajan Singh was only known to him. Sher Singh (PW-7) has admitted that his father had gone abroad in the year 1899. He along with his brother Gurbachan Singh and sisters was residing out of country. He came to the village for the first time in January, 1992. The land was on lease with the father of the petitioner since 1975. He also admitted that the entire fraud was played by Harbhajan Singh who was brother-in-law of his brother Gurbachan Singh. Laj Pat Singh-Investigator (PW-8) has also testified that during investigation, it appeared from the statement of Harbhajan Singh that he had taken an amount of Rs.19,50,000/- from the vendees which he gave to the vendors. It is pertinent to mention here that except Sher Singh, none of the vendors made any grievance with regard to the sale deeds executed by them wrongly or rightly in favour of the petitioner. From the evidence, it is culled that it was the brainchild of Harbhajan Singh who got the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner and his co-vendees by impersonation or otherwise. Since the vendors were residing out of the country since long rather from their birth, therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to know them personally. They were duly identified by Ujagar Singh and Gurmukh Singh. Harbhajan Singh was present at the time of execution of the sale deeds rather, the sale deed were executed at his instance as deposed by Anil Kumar Deed writer (PW-2). The story does not rest here. According to the Investigator, an amount of Rs.19,50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to Harbhajhan Singh who gave it to the vendors. 8. In view of this overwhelming evidence on record, Criminal Revision No.413 of 2006 4 this Court is of the opinion that neither any fraud was played by the petitioner in getting the sale deeds executed in his favour nor did he hatch any conspiracy with Harbhajan Singh or Manjit Singh. 9. In this view of the mater, both the Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Hence, the revision is accepted and the judgments under challenge are set- aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 22.2.2011. SN