In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 237 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 05, 2009 Jagjit Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. S.S.Sodhi,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab *** SABINA, J. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were tried for an offence under Section 447, 427, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short - “IPC”) in FIR No. 62 dated 20.7.2001 under Sections 447, 427, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Mehna. Vide judgment and order dated 24.3.2006, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, sentenced respondents No. 2 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- each for an offence under Section 427 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 200/- each. Aggrieved by the same respondents No. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide judgment dated 25.7.2008 and respondents No. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Hence the present revision petition by complainant-Jagjit Singh. Prosecution story in brief as notice by the appellate court in Crl. Revision No. 237 of 2009 -2- para 3 of its judgment is as under:- “The facts of the case are that Jagjit Singh complainant gave him statement to the police on 20.7.2001 that he is an agriculturist. He is having two brothers and two sisters. Hardarshan Singh his brother is having two sons Tarlochan Singh alias Mitha and Bhupinder Singh. After the death of their father Bakhtawar Singh, his property was mutated in favour of his five legal heirs including his wife Ind Kaur, two sons and two daughters. He is power of attorney holder on behalf of his sisters namely Surjit Kaur, Sukhdarshan Kaur and mother Ind Kaur. He is cultivating killa Nos. 14 and 17. He had sown the crop of Arhar and Jantar. He was out of station and yesterday evening Khem Singh told him that on 17.7.2001 at about 7/.7.45 p.m., Tarlochan Singh, Bhupinder Singh along with four/five persons armed with dangs and Sotis came on a tractor Swaraj and ploughed his crop. These persons were also having canter No. PCR 4395. In this way, the accused persons have damaged his crop. On the basis of these allegations, the case was registered. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned in this case.”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Crl. Revision No. 237 of 2009 -3- appellate court had erred in acquitting respondents No. 2 and 3 of the charge framed against them. The other co-sharers had executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and as such the petitioner was in possession of the property, in question. Learned appellate court has observed that after the death of Bhakhtawar Singh, land in question was mutated in favour of his widow, two sons and two daughters. Complainant-Jagjit Singh claimed that he was holder of power of attorney on behalf of his mother and sisters and was cultivating Killa Nos. 14 and 15 and in order to establish this fact, prosecution proved on record copy of jamabandi for the years 1997-98. Respondents No. 2 and 3, on the other hand, have placed on record copies of khasra girdawaris. Learned appellate court has further observed that from the revenue record it was not established that the petitioner was in exclusive possession of the property in question. Petitioner could not give correct Killa number which were in his exclusive possession when he appeared in the witness box as PW-1. While appearing in the witness box, petitioner had claimed that he was in possession of Killa Nos. 14 and 15. There were also material discrepancies regarding the date and time of occurrence. Complainant had averred at the time of registration of first information report that the occurrence had taken place on 17.7.2001 at about 6.45/7.00 P.M. whereas when the petitioner appeared in the witness box, he deposed that occurrence had taken place on 18.8.2007 at about 5.45/6.30 P.M.. Prosecution examined PW-2, Khem Singh as eye witness with regard to the occurrence but the said witness failed to show the place of occurrence to the police. Hence, the learned appellate court held that the prosecution Crl. Revision No. 237 of 2009 -4- case was doubtful. Learned appellate court after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the said finding and the reasons given by the learned appellate court while acquitting respondents No. 2 and 3 are sound reasons. It has been held by Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect or procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. As per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The present case does not warrant a retrial. The impugned judgments of the appellate court, thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 05, 2009 PARAMJIT