Criminal Revision No.162 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19, 2010 Suresh Hingorani ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. Accused-Suresh Hingorani,petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 419 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) in FIR No.511 dated 1.5.1997 registered at Police Station NIT Faridabad by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Faridabad on 23.3.2007 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 419 IPC and in default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Further accused-petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 467 IPC and in default of payment of finem, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal filed against the conviction and sentence dated 23.3.2007 was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 10.11.2009. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision No.162 of 2010(O&M) 2 revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below:- “FIR No.511 dated 1.5.1997 under Sections 419,420,465,467,468,471 IPC was registered with police station NIT Faridabad on the complaint made by one Kewal Krishan Lumba. It was alleged by complainant that he is owner in possession of land comprising in Khewat No.191, Khatoni No.438, 439 min 411,442, 437, 440, 443 min, Rect. No. 443 min, 439, 441,444,441 min. 445, Khasra No. 145 (1-6), 958 (0-7), 957 (0-11), 959(0-8), 1094(2-3), 1095(0-3), 1096(1-9), 1097(0-11), 1108(116), 1100 (2-4), 1140(0-3),1226/2(2-5),1227(0-15),1229 (1-12),1531/2(1-0),1533/2(0-5),1225(3-14),578(0-10),1614(0-7), 146(1-13), 1622/2(1-0),1622/1(0-6-10),1256(14),1231(2-18),1533 (3-0),1232(2-17),1230(4-1),1226/1 (0-1) to the extent of 11 Biswa 12 Biswasi Puktha i.e. 1 Bigha 14 Biswas 16 Biswas Khan, out of total measuring 38 Biswas Pukhta to the extent of Western portion of khasra no.1230 situated in village Anangpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad. The said land was purchased vide registered sale deed No.12263 dated 27.2.1991 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Faridabad, to the extent of 9 Biswa 19 Biswasi Pukhta out of total measuring 38 Bigha 6 Biswa pukhta to the extent of Western portion of khasra no.1230 land and vide sale deed No.5583 dated 16.9.1991 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Faridabad. Accused Gurdarshan Singh son of Anoop Singh and Anjit Singh son of Gurdarshan Singh had conspired Criminal Revision No.162 of 2010(O&M) 3 with D.P.Singh Tomar, Advocate and Shri Rajinder Singh, Advocate alongwith other persons and committed criminal conspiracy, cheating by impersonation and dishonestly executed two sale deeds in favour of Gurdarshan Singh. They have committed forgery by forging documents deliberately and intentionally i.e. registered sale deeds dated 14.8.1996 and 19.9.1996 by producing unknown person whose photograph is pasted on the sale deeds. Complainant alleged that fact regarding forgery and impersonation came to his knowledge when Gurdarshan Singh filed written statement in the court of Shri Lalit Batra, Civil Judge, Faridabad on 26.2.1997 and found that the offence has been committed by abovesaid persons along with one person who has assigned as Kewal Krishan Lumba. Complainant alleged that these sale deeds were not executed by him nor the same were in his knowledge and notice. After registration of FIR on the basis of above stated allegations, investigation was set in motion. Accused was arrested. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and on completion of investigation, accused was put to trial.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit. The allegations against the petitioner is that he had executed the sale deeds dated 14.8.1996 and 19.9.1996 by producing some unknown persons. The sale deeds in question were the result of impersonation and forgery. The petitioner had no concern with the property sold vide sale deeds in question. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, led its evidence. Criminal Revision No.162 of 2010(O&M) 4 Both the Courts below,after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution on record, have held that the petitioner was guilty of offence under Sections 419 and 467 IPC . Petitioner had not led any evidence in his defence. Both the Courts have observed that the prosecution had proved that the petitioner had forged the sale deeds in question as well as the accounts opening forms with Indian Overseas Bank in the name of Kewal Krishan. The complainant could not be examined in this case as he had died before the commencement of the trial. Since the prosecution had been otherwise successful in proving its case against the petitioner, the Courts below rightly held that the mere fact that the complainant had not been examined, was not fatal to the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below, which would warrant interference by this Court in revision. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge January 19, 2010 arya