Criminal Misc. No. 189-MA of 2006 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 189-MA of 2006 Date of decision : 9.9.2008 Gurdeep Singh .....Petitioner Versus Shamsher Singh and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Bijender Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner has a grievance that the impugned verdict of acquittal, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in favour of respondent/accused calls for invalidation. On a complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant against the respondents (out of whom, Apar Singh died before the trial could be, held), the learned Trial Magistrate convicted the respondents for the offences under Section 467 and 471 IPC. For the former offence, the respondents/accused were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. For the latter offence, the respondent/accused were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment Criminal Misc. No. 189-MA of 2006 -2- *** for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Learned Trial Magistrate recorded that finding by upholding the prosecution allegation that the respondents/accused obtained impugned civil court decree against Harbans Kaur by presenting another lady in her place and also by having forged the pleadings on her behalf. Though the learned Trial Magistrate accepted the presentation made by the appellant/complainant, the finding was reversed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by holding that there is no proof on the file that the impugned civil suit against Harbans Kaur had been filed by respondents/accused. I confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant to invite my attention to any evidence available on the file which could prove that the impugned civil suit had, infact, been filed by respondent/accused Shamsher Singh only. The basic idea was to invite the learned counsel for the petitioner to refer to the relevant evidence in order to able to falsify the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the above effect. The poser drew a blank from the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be noted that the presentation made by the petitioner/complainant essentially draws sustenance from the very allegation that respondent/accused-Shamsher Singh filed a civil suit against Harbans Kaur, made another lady impersonate Harbans Kaur afore-mentioned, filed a forged written statement and also got Criminal Misc. No. 189-MA of 2006 -3- *** the statement of the impersonator recorded in place of Harbans Kaur. The correct factual position, the allegation proceeds, is that Harbans Kaur did not file written statement nor did she make a statement in that civil suit conceding the decretal of the suit. In that view of things, it was incumbent upon the petitioner/complainant to obtain the specimen signature/thumb impression of respondent/accused Shamsher Singh himself in order to be able to prove that it was the latter only who had filed the impugned civil suit. The aspect of 'impersonation' of Harbans Kaur would have been next in priority on point of proof of charge against the respondent/accused. The petitioner/complainant did not obtain the signature/thumb impression of the respondent-accused Shamsher Singh who, otherwise, denied having filed the impugned suit. In the light of the fore-going discussion, I have no hesitation in affirming the finding recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that the petitioner/complainant had not been able to prove that the impugned suit had been filed by Shamsher Singh-respondent-accused. Dismissed. September 09, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE