Crl. Revision No. 963 of 2005 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision:August 18, 2010 Crl. Revision No. 963 of 2005 Bhupinder Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Crl. Revision No. 964 of 2005 Chuhar Khan ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Crl. Revision No. 965 of 2005 Nachhattar Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.H.P.S.Bhinder, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Vide this common order, Criminal Revision Nos.963, 964 and 965 of 2005 are being decided as those have been preferred against the Crl. Revision No. 963 of 2005 -2- same judgment dated 30.4.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rupnagar, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners/accused Bhupinder Singh, Chuhar Khan and Nachhattar Singh, Nambardar, against the judgment dated 7.3.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar, vide which he convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC and sentenced them as under:- Sr.No. Section Sentence 1 420 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to under go rigorous imprisonment for two months 2 467 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to under go rigorous imprisonment for two months 3 471 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to under go rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 4 120-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to under go rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The facts, in brief, are that Babu Ram and Sadhu Singh, gave a written application Ex. P-8, to Inspector General of Police (Vigilance), Punjab, Chandigarh. They mentioned therein that Jassu Ram son of Karam Chand, resident of their village Choulta Khurd expired on 16.10.1971, without leaving behind any legal heir. His land was transferred in the name of Bhupinder Singh-accused by means of sale deed executed after his death, which was attested by Nachhattar Singh, Namberdar and Chuhar Khan as witnesses. This transaction of sale was illegal and fraudulent and even the revenue officials connived with the accused. They Crl. Revision No. 963 of 2005 -3- made a prayer in the application for investigating the matter and for bringing the culprits to book. That application was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, for necessary action. On the basis thereof, FIR No. 130 dated 16.11.1993 was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Kharar. The investigation was conducted by Sukhdev Singh SI, Gurnam Singh ASI and Jaswant Singh ASI. In the course of the investigation, the death certificate of Jassu Ram, Ex. PW-4/A, affidavit of Babu Ram, complainant, Ex. PB, affidavit of Sadhu Singh, alleged sale deed dated 23.4.1992 Ex. PW-3/E, photostat copy of the Register of the office of the Sub-Registrar containing the entry of the Will executed by Jassu Ram, Ex. PW-6/A and the revenue documents pertaining to the land of Jassu Ram, deceased were collected. All the accused, except Tara Chand, were arrested. The specimen signatures of the accused-Bhupinder Singh and Chuhar Khan were obtained before the Judicial Magistrate. Those specimen signatures and the sale deed were sent to the Forensic Science laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, and after comparing those signatures, it was reported by the Assistant Director of that laboratory that those signatures were the result of common authorship. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class for the trial of the accused for the aforesaid offences. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code were complied with. From the perusal of the documents sent along with the police report, sufficient grounds were found for presuming that the accused committed the offences Crl. Revision No. 963 of 2005 -4- punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC. They were charged accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Babu Ram-complainant, PW-1, Rachan Singh, PW-2, Darshan Singh, PW- 3, Mal Singh, PW-4, Rameshwar Dass, PW-5, Sarwan Singh, PW-6, Harvinder Singh, PW-7, Arjan Singh PW-9 and Nasib Singh, PW-9. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They admitted that the sale deed was so executed by Jassu Ram in favour of Tara Chand and that Bhupinder Singh and Chuhar Khan had put their signatures thereon as attesting witnesses. However, they denied the other circumstances and pleaded that no one by name of Jassu Ram, resident of Bassi Pathana, was known to them and it was Jassu Ram, resident of village Choulta Khurd, who had executed that sale deed. They pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated at the instance of the opposite party. They were called upon to enter on their defence. However, they did not produce any evidence in their defence. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned defence counsel for the accused, learned JMIC convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The accused preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed, vide aforesaid judgment. Notices of these revision petitions were issued to the State and the State counsel has come present and opposed the same. Crl. Revision No. 963 of 2005 -5- Finding himself unable to challenge the well reasoned finding of conviction recorded by the trial court and up held by the Appellate Court, the counsel for the petitioners did not at all challenge that conviction. They confined their submissions regarding the sentence imposed upon them. They contended that the petitioners are the first offenders and keeping in view the nature of the offences, the benefit of probation be granted to them. No reasons have been given by the trial court for not extending that benefit to them though it was required to give special reasons as required by Section 361 Cr.P.C. On behalf of Bhupinder Singh, petitioner, it has been contended that he was the bona fide purchaser for consideration and the main accused, who executed the sale deed, was declared as a Proclaimed Offender. On behalf of the other petitioners, it has been contended that they were only attesting witnesses of the sale deed and were under the impression that the same was being executed by Jassu Ram. They prayed that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners be set aside and they be released on probation of good conduct. In the alternative, he prayed that sentence of imprisonment, so imposed, upon them be reduced to already undergone, keeping in view that they have been standing their trial since long. The petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 467 IPC also, which is punishable with imprisonment for life. None of the petitioner was less than 21 years of age at the time of commission of the said offences. According to Section 360 Cr.P.C., any person above the age of 21 years is to be released on probation only when he is convicted for offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less. Therefore, the trial court or the Appellate Court was not Crl. Revision No. 963 of 2005 -6- required to record any special reason while refusing the benefit of probation to the petitioners. It cannot be said that the circumstances in which the offences were committed are such that it is expedient that the petitioners be released on probation of good conduct. Such like documents are executed after due deliberations. Bhupinder Singh, cannot take up the excuse, so far as the criminal liability is concerned, that he was the bona fide purchaser for consideration. Similarly, other petitioners cannot take up the excuse that they were only the attesting witnesses to the sale deed. The sale deed was found to be forged and a pre-design on the part of the petitioners to fabricate the same, can well be assumed. It is not a case where the benefit of probation of good conduct can be extended to them. This case was registered against the petitioners in the year 1993. The challan was presented against them before the trial court in the same year and since then they are facing the trial. They are facing the agony of protracted trial for all these years. That is a circumstance for taking a lenient view, so far as the sentence of imprisonment, so imposed upon them, is concerned. The sentence of imprisonment is modified, while maintaining the sentence of fine, to the following effect:- Sr.No. Section Sentence 1 420 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year 2 469 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years 3 471 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months 4 120-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months All these sentences shall run concurrently. The period during which the petitioners were in detention in connection with the present FIR Crl. Revision No. 963 of 2005 -7- shall be set off against the sentence so imposed upon them as required by Section 428 Cr.P.C. Revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August , 2010 PARAMJIT