Criminal Revision No.1833 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1833 of 2001 Date of decision: 21.4.2009 Ajit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.N.Moudgil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) vide judgment and order dated 3.11.2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Kharar. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 467 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 468 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section Criminal Revision No.1833 of 2001 2 120-B IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 6.12.2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar. The conviction of the petitioner was maintained by the Appellate Court. However, sentence of imprisonment was reduced from three years to one year under Section 467 IPC; from three years to nine months under Section 468 IPC and from one year to six months under Section 120-B IPC. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “In nutshell, the case of the prosecution was that originally Raghbir Singh, Labh Singh and Tulsi had immovable property in village Dhole Majra and the said persons transferred their respective shares, in the said property in the name of Sital Singh, Pritam Singh and others through registered sale deed date 28.2.1963 that Raghbir Singh expired in the year 1965 and mutation regarding his inheritance was sanctioned, in the name of his sons and similarly Labh Singh, expired on 25.3.1987' that the mutation was also sanctioned on the basis of the sale deed dated 28.2.1963, but in the subsequent jamabandis, the names of the complainant party i.e. Sital Singh etc. was not mentioned; that accused Ajit Singh, Criminal Revision No.1833 of 2001 3 Pritam Singh, Phuman Singh, Pavittar Singh, Amardeep Singh, Babli and Chohal, conspired together to cheat the complainant party and then executed sale deed dated 12.5.1992, in which Babli and Chohal impersonated Raghbir Singh and Labh Singh and under the said sale deed, the property owned by the complainant party i.e. Sital Singh, Pritam Singh etc. was sold to Pavitar Singh and Amrdeep Singh sons of Ajit Singh accused. The said impostors Babli and Chohal were identified by Pritam Singh and Phuman Singh, who attested the sale deed, as marginal witnesses and the said sale deed was also signed by Ajit Singh, on behalf of vandees Pavitar Singh and Amardeep Singh; that the sale deed was executed and registered, at Kharar; that the vendees had the knowledge, as Pavittar Singhe tc. Got another sale deed executed, from Sher Jang Singh son of Labh Singh and Balbir Singh son of Anchal Singh. After registration of the FIR and completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below had erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner himself was a victim. He was father of purchasers Pavittar Singh and Amardeep Singh, who had paid the amount at the time of execution of sale deed. Petitioner could not Criminal Revision No.1833 of 2001 4 have any clue that the sellers were not the real owners of the land and were rather impersonating as the owners of the land. In a compromise effected between the impersonators, the petitioner was refunded Rs.18,000/-. After the petitioner came to know that a fraud had been played on him, he did not ask for sanctioning of mutation in favour of his sons in pursuance to the sale deed. Possession of the land in question was never taken from the real owners. Hence, the real owners did not suffer any loss. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner should have made relevant necessary inquiries before purchasing the land in the name of his sons. The petitioner in connivance with his co-accused had got executed sale deed in favour of his sons. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have force. The petitioner is father of the vendees Amardeep Singh and Pavittar Singh. There was no occasion for the petitioner to know that the persons who were selling the land to his sons were not the real owners and were rather impersonators. No loss has been caused to any one. The vendees did not get the land mutated in their favour. The possession has remained with the original owners. The possibility that the petitioner himself has been cheated by the co-accused Babli and Chohal (both since deceased) cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, the judgments of the Courts below with regard to the conviction and sentence of the Criminal Revision No.1833 of 2001 5 petitioner under Sections 467, 468 and 120-B IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. (SABINA) JUDGE April 21, 2009 anita