Crl. Revision No. 1116 of 2001 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1116 of 2001 Date of Decision:February 02, 2009 Mukhtiar Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. V.K.Jindal and Mr. Vipul Jindal,Advocates, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab *** SABINA, J. Petitioner-Mukhtiar Singh along with three others was tried for an offence under Section 420 , 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam vide its judgment dated 1.6.1998 convicted the petitioner and Labh Singh under the aforementioned offences. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 120-B IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 468 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Crl. Revision No. 1116 of 2001 {2} one year and fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 471 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 420 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated 15.5.2001. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “The prosecution case has been registered under Sectio0n 420. 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code by the Police Station, Sunam on the basis of a complaint submitted by the Joint Sub Registrar Sunam to S.H.O., Police Station, Sunam dated 15.1.1992 on the allegations that the Joint Sub Registrar, Sunam received instructions from Sub Divisional Officer (C )-cum-Ex –officio Inspector of Registration Sunam, vide letter bearing No. 89-Misc. dated 15.1.1992 to the effect that forgery has been done in the sale deed bearing document No. 2761 after its registration. Suba Singh son of Phuman Singh resident of village Dhandoli Kalan, submitted an application for getting certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No. 2761 dated 3.1.1991. Vide sale deed land bearing khasra Nos. 66/24 min(o-6), 23/1(0-7) total measuring 13 marlas situated in village Dhandoli Kalan was purchase by Mukand Singh, Suba Singh and Baldev Singh sons of Phuman Singh from Labh Singh son of Saun Singh, for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- Amar Nath accused was Crl. Revision No. 1116 of 2001 {3} working as Patwari and he entered Mutation No. 3885 dated 11.1.1991 on the basis of the said sale deed. The mutation was not sanctioned as the parties had not appeared and an injunction order was issued by the civil court. The mutation was rejected by Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide his order dated 25.2.1991. As per Suba Singh, the sale deed bearing No. 2761 was in the custody of Amar Nath and he entered another mutation bearing No. 3953 dated 30.10.1991 and instead of earlier khasra numbers, the forgery was committed and khasras No. 69/15min (0-6), 16min (0-7), total measuring 13 marlas were entered in the mutation. Suba Singh had produced the original sale deed. On perusal of the same, it is apparent that the forgery has been committed with regard to the khasra numbers mentioned in the sale deed. The copy of the sale deed was also retained in the office of Sub Registrar and the perusal of the same will disclose that the forgery has been committed therein also and rectangle No. 66 has been forged to 69, khasra No. 24 min has been forged to 15 and khasra No. 23/1 has been forged as 16. Labh Singh accused has tried to show the sale deed pertaining to the land bearing khasras No. 69/15 min and 16 min, instead of land bearing khasras No. 66/24 min and 23/1. The forgery has been done by Labh Singh, accused in connivance with revenue officials. Amar Nath, accused was working as Patwari at village Dhandoli Khurd and despite the rejection of mutation No. 3885, he entered fresh Mutation No. 3953 on the basis of Crl. Revision No. 1116 of 2001 {4} same sale deed, but with regard to the forged khasra numbers. As per the complaint submitted by Joint Sub- Registrar, Amar Nath, Patwari was directly involved in the forgery. Amar Nath, Patwari was due to retire on 31.10.1991 and both the mutations were entered by him while he was posted in the Revenue Estate of Dhandoli Khurd. The second mutation was entered by him a day prior to his retirement. The copy of sale deed is also available in the office of Sub Registrar and forgery has been done therein also. The perusal of the record in the office of Sub Registrar also shows that the document No. 2761 was removed and has been again pasted along with document No. 2762 which also indicates with regard to commission of forgery in the record maintained in the office of Sub Registrar for the forgery in the office of Sub Registrar, Sunam, Mukhtiar Singh, Registration Clerk working at that time is responsible. Subsequently, Sohan Lal accused entered mutation No. 3953, who was having additional charge of village Dhandoli Kalan on 25.11.1991 and he tried to give effect to the forgery done by the accused and tried to get the mutation sanctioned. As per the letter written by Joint Sub-Registrar, Sunam, the sale deed was scribed by Raj Kumar Goyal, but after the copy of the sale deed was removed from the office of Sub Registrar, khasra numbers have been got typed on some other type writer. After completion of formal investigation, challang against the accused was present in court.” Crl. Revision No. 1116 of 2001 {5} Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was facing criminal proceedings since the year 1992. Petitioner is not a previous convict. Petitioner is a Government employee and is due to retire within few years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner as ordered by the courts below but has submitted that the petitioner be released on probation. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the petitioner is liable to be released on probation. Petitioner is not a previous convict. He is a Government employee and due for retirement within a couple of years. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is maintained. However, the sentence awarded by the court below is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-within one month from today subject to the satisfaction of trial court for a period of one year. During this period he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. Fine deposited shall be treated as costs of proceedings. With the above modifications in the sentence, the criminal revision stands disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE February 02, 2009 PARAMJIT