Crl. Revision No.2831 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2831 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.11.2011 Mahabir Prasad ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Anand Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Record reveals that in a case under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, initiated on the application of Baba Baru Nath Chela Tika Nath Chela Jai Ram Nath, an award was passed in favour of said Baba Baru Nath. Revisionist/accused herein had moved an execution application claiming himself as Baba Baru Nath and succeeded in getting the voucher issued in his favour. Meanwhile bank has reported that Baba Baru Nath had died five years ago from the date execution application was moved and vouchers were issued to the accused. Case was registered against the revisionist/accused on the complaint made by Smt. Anita Chaudhary, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that accused claiming himself as Baba Baru Nath had moved an execution application and got issued vouchers in favour of Baba Baru Nath. Crl. Revision No.2831 of 2011 (O&M) -2- This is a case where revisionist/accused has played fraud on the Court. I do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge November 16, 2011 R.S.