IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.35976 -M of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 24, 2011 AJAIB SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Vide order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P-1), passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, Major Singh, Jagroop Singh and respondent No.2-Darshan Singh were charge-sheeted, for commission of offences under Section 465 read with Section 120-B, Section 420 read with Section 120-B, Section 467 read with Section 120-B, and Section 419, Indian Penal Code. 2 Respondent No.2-Darshan Singh carried a revision, which has been allowed vide order dated 6.9.2010 (Annexure P- 2), passed by Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on the premise that respondent No.2-Darshan Singh is only a witness of the sale deed and is stated to have identified Ajay Kumar, who is not an accused. It has further been noticed by the revisional court that Criminal Misc. No.35976 -M of 2010 (O&M) 2 respondent No.2-Darshan Singh is not alleged to have identified a wrong person as the executant of the sale deed in question. 3 In the face of such findings, no ground for interference with order (Annexure P-2) is made out. 4 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. August 24, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?