Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 Date of decision: 25.03.2009 Surjit Singh son of Chand Singh, agriculturist, resident of village Lassoi, District Sangrur. .......Revision-Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.07.2001, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --2-- which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 20.10.1999 and the order of sentence dated 21.10.1999, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla,convicting and awarding sentence to the accused as under:- Names of the accused (now appellant) The offence for which conviction was recorded. Sentence awarded Surjit Singh U/S.420 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Surjit Singh U/S 468 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years. Fine of Rs.1500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Surjit Singh U/S 471 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --3-- The substantive sentences of the accused were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts, in brief, are that letter Ex.PW5/A was written by the Branch Manager, Punjab Financial Corporation,to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, containing the allegations that M/s Dashmesh Forgings, Village Daman Mehli, Rajinder Nagar, Khanna Road, Near Ranu Filling Station, Malerkotla, District Sangrur, a partnership concern of Surjit Singh son of Chand Singh, resident of V.& P.O. Lassoi, Tehsil Malerkotla, and Teja Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of village V.& P.O. Bhudan, Tehsil Malerkotla, was sanctioned a loan of Rs.6,76,000/-. Out of the sanctioned loan, a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- was advanced to the aforesaid firm, on 13.10.1986. Surjit Singh and Teja Singh executed the mortgage deed, in favour of the Corporation. After releasing the Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --4-- amount of Rs.2,88,000/-, out of the sanctioned loan, in favour of the aforesaid firm, both the partners dissolved the same. In pursuance of the dissolution of the firm, Teja Singh, partner left the same, and Surjit Singh took over all the rights and liabilities. The Financial Corporation asked Surjit Singh to get transferred the land from Teja Singh, in his favour. Accordingly, Surjit Singh submitted a sale deed, to the Corporation, purported to have been executed by Teja Singh. However, later on, Teja Singh denied having executed any such sale deed, in favour of Surjit Singh. This fact was also verified, from the office of the Tehsildar. During verification, it was found that the sale deed was forged. Even the signatures of the Tehsildar on the sale deed were forged. It was stated that Surjit Singh, thus, forged the sale deed with an intention of causing it to be believed, by the Corporation as Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --5-- genuine. It was further stated that he also attempted to cheat the Corporation, by submitting the forged document, knowing that the same was forged. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid letter, the FIR was registered. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation,the challan was presented, against the accused. 4. On his appearance, in the trial Court,the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed, against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Nachhatter Singh, Accountant, office of the SDO(C), Malerkotla, (PW-1), Gurdev Singh, Cashier Treasury Office, Malerkotla, Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --6-- (PW-2), Prithi Pal, Deed Writer, Malerkotla, (PW-3), Kewal Singh, Patwari Halqa, Mandiya, (PW-4), Wasudev Singh, Manager, Punjab Financial Corporation, Sangrur, complainant (PW-5), Teja Singh, the alleged vendor, (PW-6), Rajinder Singh (PW-7), Balwinder Singh, Advocate, (PW-8), Kuldip Singh, (PW-9) and Gurdev Singh, retired Naib Tehsildar, (PW-10). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State closed the prosecution evidence. 6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him that he had been falsely involved in this case, on account of party faction. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --7-- 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 9. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused/appellant, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2001, by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. 10. Still dis-satisfied, the instant revision- petition was filed by the revision-petitioner. 11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 12. It is settled principle of law, that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction,the Court cannot re-evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --8-- until and unless it comes to the conclusion, that the findings of guilt, recorded by the Courts below were perverse, illegal or erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence. The Courts below, on careful appreciation of the cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy evidence of Nachhatter Singh, (PW-1), Accountant, Office of the Sub Divisional Officer (c), Malerkotla, who deposed that he was posted as Registration Clerk, at the relevant time and there was no entry of sale deed Ex.P1, in the record, Gurdev Singh, Cashier Treasury Office, Malerkotla, (PW-2), who stated that the original stamp papers were issued by him, vide Sr. No. 104 dated 18.04.1988, purported to have been purchased by Teja Singh, but he was not personally known to him, Prithipal Singh, Deed Writer, (PW-3), who stated that he typed sale deed Ex.P1, Kewal Singh, Patwari Halqa, Mandiya, (PW-4), who issued the Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --9-- jamabandi,Wasudev Singh, Manager, Punjab Financial Corporation, District Sangrur, (PW-5), the complainant, who sent letter Ex.PW5/A, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered, and that loan in the sum of Rs.6,76,000/- was sanctioned, in favour of the firm aforesaid, of which Surjit Singh and Teja Singh were the partners, and that a sum of Rs.2,88,000/-, out of the said loan, was released and thereafter, the partnership firm was dissolved and on the asking of the said Corporation that the land be got transferred by Surjit Singh from Teja Singh, as he took over the liabilities of the said firm,presented sale deed Ex.P1, which was found to be forged, Teja Singh, the alleged vendor, (PW-6), who stated that he never executed sale deed Ex.P1 regarding the share of his land, in favour of Surjit Singh; that the same did not bear his signatures; and that he never went to the office of the Sub Registrar to Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --10-- execute the sale deed, Balwinder Singh, Advocate, (PW-8), shown to be an attesting witness of the alleged sale deed Ex.P1, dated 18.04.1988, who after seeing the same, stated that the same did not bear his signatures, nor did he appear before the Tehsildar i.e. Sub Registrar, nor did he know Teja Singh, Kuldip Singh, (PW-9), another attesting witness of the disputed sale deed Ex.P1, who after seeing the same, stated that the same did not bear his signatures, and he never appeared before the Tehsildar, nor did he know Teja Singh, and Gurdev Singh, Tehsildar,(PW-10), who was posted as Naib Tehsildar on 13.02.1991, at Sangrur, and before whom, the accused was produced, for obtaining his handwriting and thumb impression, but he refused to do so, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the sale deed Ex.P1 was never executed by Teja Singh, in favour of Surjit Singh, but the same was forged by him. The Courts Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --11-- below were also right, in coming to the conclusion, that from the circumstances, it could be inferred that the said forged sale deed, knowing the same to be forged, was produced by Surjit Singh, in the Punjab Financial Corporation, who could be said to be the beneficiary. The careful perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, in context with the evidence, does not indicate that the same suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Even the findings of the Courts below, that the accused was guilty of the offences, punishable under Sections 468,471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, are neither perverse, nor illegal, nor erroneous, on account of misreading of evidence. Thus, there is no warrant to interfere with the findings, so recorded by the Courts below, regarding conviction and awarding sentence to the accused (now revision- petitioner). Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --12-- 13. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that it was Teja Singh, who himself forged the said document and produced the same, in the Punjab Financial Corporation, but the accused was falsely implicated, in the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Since the loan had been sanctioned, in favour of the firm, of which Surjit Singh and Teja Singh were the partners, the mortgage deed was executed in favour of the Corporation. After the dissolution of the firm, all the liabilities were taken over by Surjit Singh. Since the loan advanced, in favour of the firm, had not yet been repaid, at the time of dissolution of the same, the Punjab Financial Corporation asked Surjit Singh, who had taken over the liabilities of the same, to get transferred the share of Teja Singh, by Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --13-- way of sale deed, in his favour, as earlier the land of the firm had been mortgaged, as a collateral security, for sanction of loan. Under these circumstances, it was Surjit Singh, who could be said to have motive to forge the sale deed Ex.P1, as he wanted to save the land, and did not want to mortgage the same, in favour of Punjab Financial Corporation, as a collateral security. Since Teja Singh had already left the firm, he could not be said to be the beneficiary, in any manner. There was, therefore, no question for him to forge the sale deed and use the same, for cheating. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 14. It was further submitted by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, that no evidence was produced by the prosecution, to prove that the sale deed, which was alleged to be forged, Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --14-- was produced by Surjit Singh, in the Punjab Financial Corporation. It may be stated here, that, no doubt, no direct evidence has been produced, on the record in this regard. However, from the proved facts and circumstances, inference could be drawn, that it was Surjit Singh, who furnished the sale deed Ex.P1, in the office of the Punjab Financial Corporation, as he had been directed by it, to get the share of the land, already mortgaged by Teja Singh, in his favour, by way of sale deed and submit the same. Under these circumstances, the Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion, that the facts and circumstance proved, on record, clearly indicated that Surjit Singh, produced the same, in the office of the said Corporation. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --15-- 15. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 16. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. The judgment dated 27.07.2001, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 20.10.1999 and the order of sentence dated 21.10.1999, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, is upheld. If the revision-petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 17. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to take necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgment, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Crl. Revn. No. 1182 of 2001 --16-- Procedure. 18. The District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, within the stipulated period, and the compliance report be sent to this Court, immediately thereafter. 19. The Registry shall keep track of the matter, and put up the action taken reports, on receipt of the same. Even if, the same are not received, within the time frame, the matter shall be put up, within 10 days, after the expiry of the same. (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE March 25, 2009 dinesh