Criminal Revision No. 330 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 330 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.3.2009 Gurbax Singh …Petitioner Versus Numberdar Surjan Singh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) At the instance of petitioner, case FIR No. 20 dated 5.2.2000 was registered at Police Station Sarhali, under Sections 420, 423, 465, 471 & 120-B IPC. FIR was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Seven accused/respondent namely Surjan Singh, Avtar Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Ranjit Singh, Sajjan Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Subeg Singh were sent for trial. The trial was held by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran. In the FIR, it was stated that Ghasita Singh, great grand father was recorded to be in possession of khasra numbers but later on in the revenue record change was effected. Deva Singh and Mewa Singh being legal heirs of Ghasita Singh were shown in possession of the land. Grievance of the complainant was that Avtar Singh Singh son Criminal Revision No. 330 of 2009 2 of Deva Singh and Harbhajan Singh son of Hazara Singh having the full knowledge that 6 kanals & 12 marlas of land is not their property had sold 1 kanal & 2 marlas of land through false sale deeds to Ranjit Singh and Sajjan Singh sons of Ajaib Singh. It is stated that it was disclosed to both Ranjit Singh and Sajjan Singh that the land did not belong to the seller but they had not cared for the same. Surjan Singh Numberdar being brother of Harbhajan Singh having full knowledge that land did not vest in Avtar Singh and Harbhajan Singh had attested the sale deed. Prosecution had examined 12 witnesses. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and they pleaded false implication. They examined three witnesses in defence and tendered documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. On 4.8.2005, application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed. Thereafter, supplementary statements of accused were recorded. The trial Court formulated a question that whether all the accused on 22.4.1996 in the area of Naushera Pannuan cheated Gurbax Singh by alienating the land measuring 1 kanal & 2 marlas and the sale deed executed was false or forged or not or whether any offence under Section 420 IPC is attracted or not. The trial Court took into consideration that the sale deed was executed on 22.4.1996 FIR was lodged in the year 2000 after a delay of four years. The trial Court further held that prosecution has failed to prove the boundaries of the said land and identification of the property. The Court found merit in the submission of defence counsel that consolidation was conducted in the years 1954 &1955 and the Criminal Revision No. 330 of 2009 3 prosecution had failed to prove and bring on record necessary documents. The Court further held that prosecution had failed to prove any demarcation report from the Patwari. The Court further took into consideration the fact that no civil suit was ever filed. Therefore, the trial Court had acquitted the accused on 13.11.2006. The head note of the judgment of the trial Court reveal that accused No.1 Surjan Singh was aged 75 years, accused No.2 Avtar Singh was aged 70 years, accused No.3 Harbhajan Singh was 60 years, accused No.4 Ranjit Singh was aged 40 years, accused No.5 Sajjan Singh was aged 60 years, accused No.6 Gurmukh Singh was 55 years who died during the pendency of trial, and accused No.7 Subeg Singh was aged 55 years. After the judgment of acquittal was pronounced on 13.11.2006, the Additional Public Prosecutor had filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, on 31.7.2007. The Appellate Court held that there is a delay of five months in applying for certified copy and further in all there is a delay of seven months & 18 days in filing of appeal. In the present case, the occurrence pertains to year 1996. FIR was lodged in the year 2000. Accused/respondents were acquitted on 13.11.2006. In case the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Court to decide the appeal after condoning the delay of seven months & 18 days, right of speedy trial which vest in accused shall be defeated. To remand the matter after 13 years will cause irreparable loss to the accused who were aged 75 years, 70 years, 60 years, 40 years, 60 years and 55 years when the judgment of trial Court was pronounced. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the Appellate Court below had Criminal Revision No. 330 of 2009 4 acted harshly in not condoning the delay. No reasonable explanation was furnished by the State. The State has not come forward in the revision. The right of complainant to prosecute in FIR case is limited. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 19, 2009 “DK”