IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1086 of 2008 Date of decision : November 04, 2009 Gurmit Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. PS Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Gurmit Singh has filed this revision petition impugning judgment of acquittal dated 21.12.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, thereby acquitting respondent no. 2 Gurbachan Singh in case FIR No. 154 dated 19.11.1996 under sections 420, 468, 465 IPC, Police Station Dasuya. The aforesaid FIR was registered on behalf of petitioner Gurmit Singh by one Jagjit Singh claiming to be power of attorney holder of the petitioner. It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioner had executed general power of attorney in favour of respondent no. 2 but the same was cancelled on 11.6.1996 and respondent no. 2 as well as Joint Sub Registrar, Garhdiwala were given intimation of cancellation of the power of attorney. However, inspite thereof, respondent no. 2 sold property of the petitioner Criminal Revision No. 1086 of 2008 -2- vide registered sale deed dated 14.6.1996 in favour of Kamaljit Kaur (brother's wife of petitioner). The sale deed was presented for registration before Joint Sub Registrar, Garhdiwala, who, however refused to register the same on the plea that respondent no. 2 had no power of attorney to execute the same. However, the sale deed was got registered on 17.6.1996 from Sub Registrar, Dasuya by furnishing false affidavit of respondent no. 2 that he was power of attorney holder of petitioner although the said power of attorney already stood cancelled. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. There is no document on record led in evidence by the prosecution to prove that the power of attorney in favour of respondent no. 2 was ever cancelled by the petitioner. Since it was a general power of attorney, the same could be cancelled by registered deed but admittedly there was no registered deed of cancellation of the power of attorney. It was alleged that some letter was sent regarding cancellation of the power of attorney. However, power of attorney could not be cancelled by letter. Moreover, there is also no cogent evidence to depict that any such letter of cancellation of power of attorney was ever sent by the petitioner to respondent no. 2 or any body else. No such letter has been led in evidence. There is also no cogent evidence to depict that any intimation of cancellation of power of attorney was ever given to respondent no. 2. Jagjit Singh PW3 and Narinder Singh PW2 were examined to prove this fact but their statements were completely shaken in cross-examination. It was also the prosecution case that Joint Sub Registrar, Criminal Revision No. 1086 of 2008 -3- Garhdiwala had intimated to respondent no. 2 that he had no power of attorney to execute sale deed when the sale deed was presented for registration before Joint Sub Registrar, Garhdiwala. It was also the prosecution case that intimation had also been sent to Joint Sub Registrar, Garhdiwala regarding cancellation of the power of attorney. However, no such evidence was produced by the prosecution during trial. The said documentary evidence has been withheld without any explanation. In addition to the aforesaid, civil suit filed by the petitioner to challenge the sale deed executed by respondent no. 2 has since been dismissed. The said finding would also go against the petitioner and would show that no such offence as alleged by the prosecution was committed by respondent no. 2. In addition to the aforesaid, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Anr, 2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3310 has laid down that sale of property by person who is not owner thereof does not amount to cheating of the owner of the property nor it amounts to offence of forgery although it may amount to cheating of purchaser. In the instant case, purchaser of the property under sale deed executed by respondent no. 2 has not complained of cheating. Consequently, no case of cheating or forgery is made out against respondent no. 2 at the instance of petitioner or his power of attorney holder. It is also worth mentioning that there is presumption of innocence in favour of every accused. The said presumption gets strengthened and reinforced by judgment of acquittal. In the instant case, Criminal Revision No. 1086 of 2008 -4- reasons mentioned hereinabove were sufficient to acquit respondent no. 2. Even if two views are possible and the trial court has taken a reasonable view which is favourable to the accused, the judgment of the trial court cannot be reversed merely on the ground that another view is also possible. In the instant case, in fact the only reasonable view of the evidence led by the prosecution that is possible is that case of the prosecution against respondent no. 2 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It may also be added that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, finding of acquittal cannot be converted into finding of conviction as provided by statutory provision contained in section 401(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 04, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'