Criminal Revision No.1681 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1681 of 2010 Date of decision:- Chandan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Narender @ Ravinder and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana. RITU BAHRI J. The petitioner has challenged by way of this revision petition the judgment dated 19.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby the accused Narender @ Ravinder and Manoj son of Shri Shankar Lal have been acquitted in appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 09.6.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad. The dispute revolves around an agreement to sell executed by Shri Balwan Singh son of Kalla for a sale consideration of 3,30,000/- per acre in the presence of Narender son of Dharam Pal resident of Jawan and Ran Singh son of Ramhet resident of Prithla and Rs.5,000/- were given to Narender prior to execution of the agreement to sell through Ran Singh. This agreement was executed on the shop of Manoj and Rs.3,30,000/- were given to Balwant. Criminal Revision No.1681 of 2010 -2- Photograph of Balwant was affixed on the said agreement. When Balwant Singh came to know about the agreement to sell, he approached the Panchayat. Narender apologize before the Panchayat and assured to make the payment. Thereafter the FIR was registered. The challan was presented against Narender and Manoj. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. The trial Court has placed reliance on the panchnama/compromise (Ex. PW7/A). The accused Manoj and Narender had put their signatures and agreed to return back the amount of Rs.95000/- by Manoj and Rs.2,15,000/- by Narender. The report (Ex.PW7/A) was prepared by Shri Prem Chand Hudda, Assistant Director. The sample signatures of accused Manoj and Narender taken by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad and were sent for finger print examination. PW7 Kaptan Singh, Finger Print Expert had identified the said signatures. In the disclosure statements (Ex.PW3/A) of Narender and (Ex.PW3/B) of Manoj have admitted their guilt, where they confessed their involvement in the commission of offence. The accused had admitted before the Panchayat (Ex.PW5/A) that they have ready to return the amount and put their signatures on the panchnama. The trial Court had convicted the accused by holding that they have identified by Ram Charan and Balwant Singh that they dishonestly and intentionally caused loss to the complainant and received a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- by executing receipt (Ex.PW3/A). They were convicted for commission of offence under Sections 420,467,468, 471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The entire prosecution story is based on the inquiry conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate. On appeal, the accused have been acquitted. It is held that the disclosure statements have not been proved by the prosecution. Nothing was recovered or discovered as related to the present case. The above statements were recorded while they were in custody and since no disclosure statements have been proved and no recovery has been effected in pursuance to the Criminal Revision No.1681 of 2010 -3- statements, in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, they are not admissible. The hand writing and finger print expert report is Ex.PX. This has not been proved by the prosecution. Author of the report has not been examined. As per the report specimen signatures of the accused were taken in Court. These signatures were taken on plain paper, which are not part of the court proceedings and they have not been proved nor marked or exhibited. The report was found not admissible in evidence. Another laxity in the prosecution case is that the eye witnesses of the execution of the impugned agreement to sell namely Bharat Singh and Ranjit Singh have not been examined. Discarding the report of the Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert Ex.PX and contents of panchnama Ex.PW5/A, the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove to discharge its burden qua the point of determination that the agreement to sell was forged. No witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer has been produced in the Court and the accused had no occasion to cross-examine them. In view of the above, the judgment dated 19.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad suffers from no irregularity. The criminal revision petition is dismissed. ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE