IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.1870 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 19, 2010 GURBACHAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS NAIB SINGH & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. PS Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed by the complainant and is directed against judgment dated 13.4.2007 whereby the respondents have been acquitted. It transpires that the respondents were tried for commission of offences under Sections 379, 447, 427, 34, Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the respondents and sentenced them for commission of offences, as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, an appeal was filed. The appeal has been allowed while considering that complainant-Gurbachan Singh, who appeared as PW-5, had admitted that he had not seen the occurrence with his own eyes. Under 2 the circumstances, the entire version as given out to the police tantamounts to hearsay evidence. The trial court has further considered that the evidence indicates that possession of the parties had not been established. Chand Singh, owner of the land, was residing abroad and had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Malkiat Singh. Gurbachan Singh (complainant) had admitted his enmity with the accused. Various litigations were pending between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that some material piece of evidence has been overlooked or has been mis-interpretted. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. February 19, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?