Criminal Revision No.2294 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2294 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : November 10, 2010 Mal Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.08.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dismissing the appeal of the accused – petitioner Mal Singh (herein referred as `the accused') against the judgment dated 24.03.2001 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for brevity `the IPC'); and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Criminal Revision No.2294 of 2003(O&M) [2] Section 468 IPC. In nutshell, the facts are that on 20.07.1996, the complainant - Harchand Kaur wife of late Pishora Singh, a resident of village Dandrala Dhindsa got recorded her statement that Pishora Singh had died about 17 years back. Her only son is employed in Military. Her daughter-in-law Jaspal Kaur is blessed with two sons. In the year 1994, she had taken three bighas of land on mortgage from the accused. Thereafter, she with a view to purchase the said land entered into a bargain with the accused and on 23.1.1996, she came to Nabha where she got scribed a sale-deed from Shri Pawan Kumar, Deed Writer in the presence of Ranjit Singh, Sarpanch and Balbir Singh Panch and made payment of Rs.47,000/- in their presence. However, as soon as she went to the office of Sub-Registrar for the purposes of registration of the sale-deed, the accused disappeared therefrom and as such usurped the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- instead of getting the sale-deed registered. Thereafter, the accused instrumented his wife Mohinder Kaur, who after filing a suit, obtained a stay order from the Court, so that both of them could grab her money. Prior to it also on 28.1.994, she had purchased 11 Biswas of land for Rs.1,02,000/- from the accused through registered sale deed. The accused Mal Singh had also taken away the original sale deed relating to the said land from the office of Sub Registrar, Nabha and she is in possession of the official receipt of the same. She further stated that she also came to know that Mal Singh had already entered into an agreement to sell the said land with Sukhwinder Singh after receipt of Rs.1,20,000/- and, duped him also. On the basis of this complaint, the First Information Report was registered and the investigation Criminal Revision No.2294 of 2003(O&M) [3] commenced. After apprehending the accused and on completion of the necessary formalities, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. Finding a prima facie case, the accused was charged under Sections 406 and 468 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In a bid to prove its version, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in all, and also proved some documents in evidence. Thereafter, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused pleaded his false implication, but led no evidence in defence. However, the trial ended in conviction and the appeal also failed. No arguments have been raised on the question of conviction, however, some leniency has been sought on the quantum of sentence. The accused is alleged to have not signed the sale deed and does not accept if he received the sale amount. However, while delving deep into the facts of the case, it transpires that the complainant had filed a civil suit, wherein, a decree directing the accused to complete the registration of sale deed dated 23.1.1999 was passed; the accused has already executed the sale deed and got it registered in favour of the complainant. Thus, after the passing of the decree by the Civil Court, no iota of doubt remains in the mind of the court to hold that the accused resisted from getting the sale-deed registered even after receiving the sale- price and executing the sale-deed. It has been further urged that the petitioner will not claim any right over the property in dispute and that he has already delivered all the documents of the property to the complainant. Criminal Revision No.2294 of 2003(O&M) [4] Further more, he has already undergone three months of the substantive sentence, therefore, some leniency may be extended to him on the quantum of sentence. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and that the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings, this revision is dismissed with the modification in the sentence of imprisonment, reducing it to that already undergone, without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Further, the accused – petitioner is directed to facilitate the execution of any other document, if so, required by the complainant on the basis of the sale- deed executed by him in her favour and will not claim any right over the disputed property. November 10, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE