Criminal Revision No.1825 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1825 of 2001 Date of decision: 21.4.2009 Pritam Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. The petitioners were convicted under Sections 467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) vide judgment and order dated 3.11.2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Kharar. Vide order of the even date, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- each under Section 467 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 120-B IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the Criminal Revision No.1825 of 2001 2 same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 6.12.2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar. The conviction of the petitioners was maintained by the Appellate Court. However, sentence of imprisonment was reduced from three years to one year under Section 467 IPC and from one year to six months under Section 120- B IPC. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “In nutshell, the case of the prosecution was that originally Raghbir Singh, Labh Singh and Tulsi had immovable property in village Dhole Majra and the said persons transferred their respective shares, in the said property in the name of Sital Singh, Pritam Singh and others through registered sale deed date 28.2.1963 that Raghbir Singh expired in the year 1965 and mutation regarding his inheritance was sanctioned, in the name of his sons and similarly Labh Singh, expired on 25.3.1987' that the mutation was also sanctioned on the basis of the sale deed dated 28.2.1963, but in the subsequent jamabandis, the names of the complainant party i.e. Sital Singh etc. was not mentioned; that accused Ajit Singh, Pritam Singh, Phuman Singh, Pavittar Singh, Amardeep Singh, Babli and Chohal, conspired together to cheat the Criminal Revision No.1825 of 2001 3 complainant party and then executed sale deed dated 12.5.1992, in which Babli and Chohal impersonated Raghbir Singh and Labh Singh and under the said sale deed, the property owned by the complainant party i.e. Sital Singh, Pritam Singh etc. was sold to Pavitar Singh and Amrdeep Singh sons of Ajit Singh accused. The said impostors Babli and Chohal were identified by Pritam Singh and Phuman Singh, who attested the sale deed, as marginal witnesses and the said sale deed was also signed by Ajit Singh, on behalf of vandees Pavitar Singh and Amardeep Singh; that the sale deed was executed and registered, at Kharar; that the vendees had the knowledge, as Pavittar Singhe tc. Got another sale deed executed, from Sher Jang Singh son of Labh Singh and Balbir Singh son of Anchal Singh. After registration of the FIR and completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented.” No body has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. I have gone through the record of the case with the able assistance of learned State counsel. In the present case, Raghbir Singh, Labh Singh and Tulsi owned land in village Dhode Majra. They sold their share in the suit property to Sital Singh and Pritam Singh. Raghbir Singh died in the year 1965 and mutation was sanctioned in favour of his sons. Labh Criminal Revision No.1825 of 2001 4 Singh died on 25.3.1987. Co- accused of the petitioners Chohal Singh and Babli (both since deceased) impersonated themselves as Raghbir Singh and Labh Singh and got a sale deed executed in favour of Pavittar Singh and Amardeep Singh. On the basis of the sale deed in question, mutation was never got sanctioned in favour of the purchasers Amardeep Singh and Pavittar Singh. Possession of the land remained with the original owners. Thus, the original owners did not suffer any loss. The accused, who had impersonated as owners of the land, have since died. The present petitioners were the attesting witnesses of the sale deed in question. The Courts below have, thus, rightly convicted the petitioners under Sections 467 and 120-B IPC. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to as already undergone by the petitioners. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE April 21, 2009 anita