Crl. Misc. No. M-15560 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-15560 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 10, 2009 Sarowar Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sarowar Singh has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 29 dated 11.02.2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Division No.5, District Ludhiana. A General Power of Attorney was executed on behalf of Dhanwant Kaur, Surinder Kaur and Baldev Kaur in favour of one Amritpal Singh and pursuant thereto, Amritpal Singh sold land of the said ladies. At the time of execution of Power of Attorney, the petitioner as lambardaar identified the executants. However, it turned out that the executants were Crl. Misc. No. M-15560 of 2009 2 being impersonated by some other ladies. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner attested the Power of Attorney in bona fide manner. The contention cannot be accepted at this stage because endorsement of the Sub Registrar reveals that the the petitioner as lambardaar identified the executants. It also reveals that the petitioner being lambardaar was known to the Sub Registrar, whereas the second attesting witness was not even known to the Sub Registrar. Thus, it was on the basis of identification of the petitioner that the General Power of Attorney was registered. Had the petitioner not wrongly identified the executants, nothing wrong could have happened. Neither the Power of Attorney could have been executed or registered nor the sale deed could have been executed. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner does not even belong to the village, to which the executant of Power of Attorney belong. It rather goes against the petitioner because the petitioner, without knowing the executants and without verifying their identity, wrongly identified them, although the executants belonged to a different village. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Haji Shaukat Ali vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported as 2004 Crl. L. J. 4074 contended that no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against attesting witness of a document executed by impersonation. However, there are other offences also including forgery of the Power of Attorney in the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. U.T., Chandigarh reported as 1997 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 402. In that case, an advocate had identified the executant before the Notary Public. The advocate was given benefit of doubt. These judgments are distinguishable on facts. Moreover, these judgments relate to final decision of the case and not at the preliminary Crl. Misc. No. M-15560 of 2009 3 stage. In view of the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, I do not find it a fit case to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. July 10, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE