IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1720 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : September 16, 2009. S.L. Dewan ...... Petitioner Versus. State of Punjab, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Shri S.L. Dewan, lodged a complaint, stating therein that his family members were allotted four plots in Friends Co-operative House Building Society, Maqsudan, Jalandhar, and were issued Government letters under registered cover and the possession letters were also issued after making full payment of value of the plots under proper receipts. However, a conspiracy was hatched without knowledge of the complainant that their plot numbers were changed arbitrarily by the accused-respondents. The transfer letters issued were alleged to have been signed by the complainant, wherein all the signatures were found to be fabricated and forged. On this complaint, an F.I.R. was registered and after investigation, the challan was presented. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents under Section 420/465/467/468/471/120-B I.P.C., vide Crl. Revision No. 1720 of 2009 (O/M). order dated 06.10.2007. On an appeal preferred by the accused-respondents, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 26.03.2008, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and acquitted the accused-respondents of charges framed against them, leading to the filing of the present revision petition by the petitioner, who is the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused-respondents of the offence, for which they were charged and the lower Appellate Court had, without appreciating the evidence, led by the prosecution in its right perspective, proceeded to wrongly acquit the accused-respondents. He further contends that the statements of the witnesses and document expert produced by the prosecution, clearly spells out that the offences were committed by the accused-respondents, therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Jalandhar, dated 26.03.2008, deserves to be set aside and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, dated 06.10.2007, be restored. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The basic requirement for proving the offences, for which the charges were framed against the accused-respondents, was that the signatures, which are alleged to have been fabricated and forged by the accused-respondents of the complainant and his family members, who were the allottees of the plot, should have been compared with those of their admitted signatures and even if they were not proved genuine, the offence would have been proved against the accused-respondents. The evidence to -2- Crl. Revision No. 1720 of 2009 (O/M). this effect was that of one person, who had appeared as prosecution witness, but the said person is a Fingerprint Expert and does not have any knowledge about the handwriting aspect. That apart, no statement was given by Shri Fateh Chand, who is stated to be a Fingerprint Expert before the police during the investigation of the criminal case. No statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stands recorded and this fact had been admitted by Shri Fateh Cahnd in his cross examination before the Trial Court. He stated that he had made statement before the Civil Court, but the said statement had already been rejected by the Civil Court in civil proceedings, initiated by the complainant and also in an appeal preferred against the said judgment, the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, had also rejected his statement. The factum of filing the civil suit and the same going against the petitioner is admitted by Shri S.L. Dewan-complainant, while appearing before the Trial Court as P.W.2. It is also an admitted position that he had lost the cases before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), and thereafter, before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar. The findings given by the Civil Court were clear and categoric and were binding on the criminal court on the aspect with regard to signatures of the persons concerned. It is also an admitted position that neither Veena Dewan, Raksha Dewan and Daya Wanti appeared before the police and joined the investigation and made any statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor Veena Dewan, and Dayawanti appeared before the Trial Court. Veena Dewan and Dayawanti did not come to the Court to identify their signatures on the disputed letters. In any case, no independent witness had been examined by the prosecution, which could give some credence to the statements given by the prosecution witnesses. Only one -3- Crl. Revision No. 1720 of 2009 (O/M). non-official witness, namely, Shingara Singh was produced in the Court, who also did not support the prosecution story. As has been stated above, no letters showing the possession and delivery of the plots to the complainant or his daughter-in-law or any of his family members, had been produced on record, which would go to prove that the plots were transferred to them and they were given possession thereof. As per record of the Society, no plot is proved to have been sold by the accused-respondents to anybody after the date plot No. 124 and 125 were transferred by the Society after the decision of Civil Court. The explanation, if any, with regard to non production of documents had come in the statement of P.W.3 Raksha Dewan, where she had stated that the allotment letter had been misplaced. Nothing had been brought on record either in the form of report to the police regarding misplacement of letter nor there being any effort on the part of the complainant for informing the Society to that effect. She had further stated that she had never participated in the meetings of the Society nor had she signed any register or proceedings. She had further stated that she was not aware of the fact that her father-in-law used to sign on her behalf, wherever needed. She had further admitted that she had not given her signatures to the police nor they demanded her signatures for comparison. All this goes to show that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused-respondents, for which they were charged. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various judgments has held that the powers being exercised by the Revisional Court are limited in nature, especially to set aside the order of acquittal and that too at the instance of private party. In the case of Mahendra Partap Singh Versus Sarju Singh -4- Crl. Revision No. 1720 of 2009 (O/M). and another, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 707, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has said that the High Court is entitled to set aside the acquittal in a revision or order of retrial, where there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court is not entitled to interfere, if wrong view is taken by Court of Session or if even there is mis-appreciation of evidence. However, the High Court can interfere, if there is an error on point of law or non appraisal of evidence at all. The High Court can also exercise its jurisdiction, if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence, which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. This position has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Akalu Ahir Versus Ramdeo Ram, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2145. This has been the consistent view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which has been followed by the Courts. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar, 2002 S.C. 2907, again this position has been reiterated. By now, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts, should not be lightly exercised, particularly when it has been invoked by a private complainant. This jurisdiction being limited one, should not be equated and exercised as one which an Appellate Court exercises, which is much wider as the Court exercising such jurisdiction can go into the question of facts and law and convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. The revisional jurisdiction and that too at the instance of complainant has to be exercised by the High Courts with care, caution, circumspect and sparingly that too in very exceptional cases. -5- Crl. Revision No. 1720 of 2009 (O/M). Keeping these principles in view, no legal infirmity in the procedure or conduct of trial has been pointed out, which would call for interference by this Court as the assertion of counsel for the petitioner is non consideration of evidence by the Trial Court in the proper perspective, while reaching the conclusion. This cannot be said to be a case, which would call for interference by this Court or one which would fall within the parameters, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction as has been laid down in various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court for exercise of jurisdiction. In the light of above, no illegality has been committed by the lower Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal of accused-respondents, which would call for interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present revision petition, the samde stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE September 16, 2009. sjks. -6-