Crl.Rev.No.844 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.844 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 07.07.2009 Swaranjit Kaur ....Petitioner(s) vs. Jagmohan and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mrs.Rahish Pahwa Dedeja, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, vide which the accused have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner- complainant is an old lady who had been deprived of her property on the basis of a power of attorney which was prepared by her sons by mis- representation and after obtaining her signatures on some papers. By making misuse of that power of attorney, they had sold out a plot in favour of Amarjit Singh. She submits that the signatures on the papers were obtained by her sons on the pretext that the same were required for pension case. It is further submitted that the power of attorney which was executed in favour of the sons was cancelled by her and a communication to that effect revoking the power of attorney was sent through U.P.C. to the accused who despite being aware of the said revocation, proceeded to sell Crl.Rev.No.844 of 2009 -2- the plot in question. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was able to prove before the Court the allegations which she had made in her complaint and had appeared before the trial Court to support her complaint and deposed accordingly. Despite there being overwhelming evidence against the accused, the same has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court while acquitting them. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that assuming that the power of attorney was got executed by the accused from the petitioner but nevertheless after the cancellation deed dated 22.7.1998, ( Exhibit P-2 ) had been executed by the petitioner and the said cancellation deed having been conveyed through UPC dated 23.7.1998 Exhibit PW9/A which fact was proved by production of Amarjit Singh P.R.O. of the Postal Department as PW-9 who stated before the trial Court that the UPC receipt so produced in the Court bears the stamp of the Post Office. The sale deed could not have been executed on 29.7.1998. Counsel further submits that the postal receipt having been proved on record dated 23.7.1998, the presumption with regard to the said receipt of the cancellation deed upon the sons, is attached thereto and, therefore, the sale deed entered into on the basis of the power of attorney dated 29.7.1998 is a clear fraud being played upon the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The power of attorney which is said to have been got executed by the accused by misleading her is a registered document whereon endorsement was made on the backside thereof. The said endorsement shows that the Sub Registrar had read over the contents of the power of attorney to Swaranjit Kaur (petitioner ) who signed the said endorsement Crl.Rev.No.844 of 2009 -3- before the Sub Registrar. The contention, therefore, of the petitioner- complainant that the accused had obtained her signatures on blank stamp papers and the power of attorney was fabricated by using the said papers, cannot be sustained. The cancellation deed is dated 22.7.1998 but as has come on record, the UPC receipt which has been placed on record is dated 23.7.1998 whereas the notice which is said to have been sent by the letter UPC receipt thereof is dated 23.7.1998 bears the date as 27.8.1998. A document which has not as yet come into existence and bears the date as 27.8.1998 could not have been sent through UPC dated 23.7.1998 to the accused. Even if the UPC is taken to be dated 23.7.1998 then also the contents of the said letter which was sent through UPC being dated 27.8.1998 which is the notice showing the cancellation of the power of attorney, cannot be accepted to be genuine one. The conclusion, therefore, drawn by the trial Court with regard to the fact that the cancellation notice was not served upon the accused before the execution of sale deed dated 29.7.1998, cannot be said to be without any basis. The findings, therefore, recorded by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution where the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against the accused, is fully justified. No illegality can be said to have been committed by the trial Court while coming to the conclusion that the accused cannot be held guilty of any offence. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same stands dismissed. July 07, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Crl.Rev.No.844 of 2009 -4-