Crl. Revision No.2577 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 2577 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 09.08.2011 Gian Chand ....Petitioner Vs. Ram Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) Assailed in this petition is the order dated 11.07.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar, whereby in a complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 499, 500, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 (X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the accused-respondents (hereinafter refer to as 'the respondents') were discharged. The allegations against the respondents-Ram Kumar, Neeraj Kumar and Suresh Kumar are that on 15.06.2007 when the meeting of Gram Sabha was being conducted, then the aforesaid respondents used derogatory remarks condemning the caste of the petitioner. They also insulted and intimidated him. Crl. Revision No.2577 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The respondents were tried and ultimately, were discharged. Having perused the records, it transpires that the proceeding-book relied upon by the petitioner dated 15.06.2007 indicates that the respondents were not marked present in the meeting. Therefore, the question of condemning the caste of the petitioner does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the last page of the proceeding-book, where the names of the accused-respondents are recorded. But, apparently, the same appears to be an interpolation. After the proceedings were completed, the complainant with the help of some persons, got added the names of the accused while getting undue benefit of blank portion of the page above the signatures. It would be pertinent to mention that on perusal of the resolution, it transpires that after the resolution was completed and signed, some space was left. The author added the names of the respondents there. The space in between these lines is thinner than that of the space left by the writer in lines of the other writing in order to support the allegations of the petitioner. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 9th of August, 2011 JUDGE ajp