Criminal Revision No.1512 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1512 of 2004 Date of Decision: November 05, 2009 Amar Singh .......Petitioner Versus Sohawa Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.APS Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. This revision petition, filed by complainant Amar Singh, is directed against the judgment dated 28.4.2004 whereby respondents No.1 to 4 had been acquitted by the trial Court. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant- petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from one Joginder Singh and Criminal Revision No.1512 of 2004 -2- when the former was not in a position to repay that amount, he executed a power of attorney in favour of Joginder Singh agreeing to sell his land measuring 2 kanals to him. The said power of attorney was witnessed by Desu Singh, Numberdar and one Kaka Singh which was also got registered, on 17.3.1998 and thereafter, the said power of attorney was handed over to Joginder Singh. 3. According to the allegations made by the complainant, Joginder Singh on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney, alleged to have got registered on 19.3.1998, sold complainant's entire property i.e. 52 kanals by executing three different sale-deeds in favour of his niece Sukhwinder Kaur. It was alleged on behalf of the complainant that the power of attorney on the basis of which his entire land had been sold by Joginder Singh, in fact, did not bear his signatures. It was further alleged by the complainant that Joginder Singh, Numberdar Sohawa Singh, Kaka Singh and vendee Sukhwinder Kaur had committed fraud upon him by means of a forged power of attorney. The complainant accordingly, lodged a complaint to the police in this regard, on the basis of which, a criminal case for the commission of offence under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 4. It may be mentioned here that during the course of trial, accused Joginder Singh died and the trial commenced against the present private respondents only. 5. The accused were accordingly charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. 6. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statements of Criminal Revision No.1512 of 2004 -3- accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they deposed that they want to lead evidence in defence. 7. Accused Sohawa Singh himself appeared as DW1 and stated that six years prior to the date of his deposition in the Court, complainant Amar Singh had executed a power of attorney, Exhibit PW5/A, in his favour in respect of 6½ killas of land, which was witnessed by him as well as Kaka Singh. Thereafter, the accused-respondents examined three more witnesses also in their defence. 8. The trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable shadows of doubt while observing that for the best known reason, prosecution has not got proved one report which is lying un-exhibited on the file whereby thumb impression of Sohawa Singh was got compared from the hand-writing expert. The last line of the said report shows that the nature, direction and sequence of each point has been indicated in its relevant circle, so many points of similarity cannot be found to occur in the impression or different thumb impression and fingers. These are, therefore, identical or are of one and the same person. So, it is clear that the thumb impression of the disputed one as well as admitted one are proved to be one and the same person, and consequently, acquitted them of the charges framed against them. 9. It may be mentioned that the State of Punjab did not file any appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents. The present revision has been filed by the complainant-petitioner challenging the order of acquittal of the respondents. Criminal Revision No.1512 of 2004 -4- 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 11. The short question that arises for consideration in the present revision petition is, whether complainant Amar Singh executed a power of attorney in favour of Joginder Singh in regard to land measuring 2 kanals, which was registered at No.30 dated 17.3.1998. 12. The allegation is that accused-Joginder Singh forged power of attorney and got it registered on 19.3.1998 and sold the entire property of the complainant measuring 52 kanals by further executing three different sale-deeds on the basis of said power of attorney. 13. In the given facts, if it is established that complainant, Amar Singh, got scribed power of attorney No.30 dated 17.3.1998 in favour of Joginder in respect of land measuring 2 kanals which was allegedly attested by Numberdar Desu Singh and Kaka Singh and was got scribed by Chhaju Ram is factually correct, in that event, the subsequent power of attorney i.e. 19.3.1998 would be automatically a forged one. 14. From the facts, it is made out that the prosecution never produced on file the power of attorney dated 17.3.1998. Not only that the power of attorney was not brought on record, even the certified copy of the relevant register of the deed-writer was also not produced in Court in order to prove the fact that the power of attorney was entered in the register on 17.3.1998. To support its case, the prosecution examined Desu Singh, PW2, but the deposition of this witness was not sufficient to establish the power of attorney bearing Vasika No.30 of 17.3.1998. 15. Apart from the non-production of power of attorney dated 17.3.1998, the complainant in his statement made on 7.7.2000 had admitted Criminal Revision No.1512 of 2004 -5- that the power of attorney mark 'A', Exhibit PW5/A, bore his photograph along with Numberdar Sohawa Singh. There is no explanation of Amar Singh on the record as to for what reason, and under what circumstances, he had got himself photographed together with Sohawa Singh. The only conclusion is that complainant Amar Singh got himself photographed along with Sohawa Singh for the purpose of executing power of attorney dated 19.3.1998 bearing vasika No.70 and not vasika No.30 dated 17.3.1998. 16. As regards the cancellation of deed of power of attorney executed by complainant Amar Singh, the cross-examination of Amar Singh, PW1 on 7.7.2000 is relevant wherein he had stated that he did not have the original cancellation deed of power of attorney dated 26.5.1998 in his possession. Therefore, this statement of complainant is of no consequence. 17. Sohawa Singh, DW1, has categorically stated that on 19.3.1998, a power of attorney was executed by Amar Singh in favour of Joginder Singh (deceased) and he put his thumb impression on the same. He has further stated that he got himself photographed with Amar Singh which was attached to the power of attorney dated 19.3.1998. Satnam Singh, DW3, Registry Clerk, proved the cancellation deed of power of attorney, Exhibit DX. Gurdas Singh, DW4, proved the document, Exhibit DX, the cancellation deed. It is made out from the reading of cancellation deed that the power of attorney bearing vasika No.70 dated 19.3.1998 executed in favour of Joginder Singh (deceased) is to be considered as cancelled. The date of cancellation is recorded as 26.5.1998, therefore, it is established that there was only one power of attorney executed by complainant Amar Singh in favour of Joginder Singh (deceased) i.e. on Criminal Revision No.1512 of 2004 -6- 19.3.1998, which was subsequently got cancelled on 26.5.1998. It is to be noted that prior to the cancellation, Joginder Singh executed all the sale- deeds in favour of Sukhjinder Kaur and, therefore, it is conclusively proved that there was no power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of accused Joginder Singh on 17.3.1998. 18. As regards the report of the finger print expert, the learned trial Court has stated that the same was not supported by any circumstance. As noticed above, it is proved that document, Exhibit DX, goes to establish that complainant Amar Singh himself executed power of attorney, Ex.PW5/A, dated 19.3.1998 and the question of forging the said power of attorney, therefore, does not arise. 19. In the circumstances, no case for interference in the judgment passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala is made out and accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. The judgment/order of trial Court is, thus, maintained. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) November 05, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No