IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 47 of 2004. Date of Decision : 6.5.2011. Tarsem Singh …..Petitioner. Versus. State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : None. For the respondent : Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). Case called out. Nobody is present. The petitioner has been duly served as reported by the Registry. Actual date notice for his presence for 28.4.2011 was issued. Notice received back after service. 2. I have heard learned Dy. Ad1vocate General and have also gone through the record. 3. The petitioner challenges his conviction under Section 468, 465, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 82 of Indian Registration Act. FIR No. 131 dated 28.5.1993 was registered at Police Station, Nurpur accusing the petitioner for commission of offence supra. 4. The facts of the case are that PW2 Krishan Singh son of Jagat Singh had filed an application Ex.PW1/A before the 1 Whether the reports of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgement? Yes, 2 Sub Registrar, Nurpur stating that on 29.6.1992 vide document No.588, Bahi No.5, Jilt No.105 one Kishan Singh, aged about 25 years son of Jagat Singh had executed a sale deed with respect of his land in connivance with his co-accused Tarsem Singh (petitioner herein) and Rai Singh in favour of Hari Singh son of Sher Singh resident of Khadol, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H. P. After considering the application, PW1 Shri Ram Pratap Shandil, the then Naib Teghsildar-cum-Sub Registrar recorded the Statement of Kishan Singh Ex.PW10/A and compared the signature with the signature in sale deed Ex.PW1/B. After verifying the contents, he came to the conclusion that fraud had been purported as a false registration has been made. He filed application Ex.PW9/C with the SHO, Police Station, Nurpur. Shri Mohinder Singh (PW6) the then SHO of the Police Station made endorsement Ex.PW6./B and case FIR Ex.PW6/A was registered. The matter was investigated and the case was proceeded thereafter. 5. On the perusal of points formulated by the learned trial Court as to whether the petitioner herein along with co- accused Rai Singh is guilty of offence, as alleged. The learned trial Court on the evidence on record, concluded that the petitioner was guilt in facilitating the fraud. In arriving at this conclusion the learned trial Court considered that the sale deed Ex.PW1/A which was scribe on 29.6.1992 by Shri S.K. Sahotra, Advocate (PW9). It was not disputed that this sale deed which was registered/presented for registration before the Sub 3 Registrar, Nurpur Shri Ram Pratap Shandil (PW1). The scribe appeared as PW9 and he has stated that on 29.6.1992 he drafted the sale deed in question on the instructions of vendor Krishan Singh and execution was witnessed by Rai Singh and Tarsem Singh as witnesses. He could not identify the witnesses (these two persons). The vendee, PW4 Hari Singh also appears as a witness and stated that accused Tarsem Singh approached him by informing him that his son-in-law wants to sell land situated in Khadol and after few days again negotiations took place between them. From his testimony, the learned trial Court concluded that there was ample evidence on record to show that PW2 Krishan Singh has not executed the alleged sale deed. He identified the accused and their signatures on the sale deed Ex.PW1/B. Not only this the Court concluded that PW4 Hari Singh, the vendee had stated that the person executing the sale deed was 25 years of age, whereas PW2 is aged about 65 years. On comparison of the handwriting specimen the Court also came to the conclusion that it was of the accused persons. 6. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty for facilitating the fraud before the Sub Registrar. 7. In appeal, the petitioner’s plea is that the learned trial court has not considered the submission made on behalf of the accused that the evidence on record does not justify the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court was rejected. The 4 Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and concluded: “16. Thus, the factum of execution of the sale deed (Ex. PW1/B) dated 29.6.1992 by one Krishan Singh alias Kishan Singh son of Sh. Jagat Singh, resident of village Chehata, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, in favour of Hari Singh (PW4) is fully proved and established on record. Even perusal of endorsement of Sub-Registrar on sale deed reflect that Krishan Singh was identified by Rai Singh Lambardar, who also identified second witness Tarsem Singh. Both these witnesses appended their signatures on sale deed before Sub-Registrar in presence of PW10 Kuldeep Raj, who was posted in the Tehsil Office as a registration clerk at the relevant point of time. 17. PW4 Hari Singh vendee has come up with the circumstances, under which he had purchased the land under deed (Ex.PW1/B) from vendor Krishan Singh. He has deposed that was approached in May, 1992 by Tarsem Singh and offered to sell share of the land of his brother-in-law Krishan Singh, which land was situated in Tika Khadol, Mauza Charod, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra. He then says, but price was not settled. After few days, Tarsem Singh again came to him and told that had consulted his brother-in-law, who had agreed to sell the land and 5 that deed was to be executed on 29.6.1992 after collecting the revenue papers. On that day, in presence of Rai Singh Lambardar and Naib Tehsildar, the sale consideration of Rs.22,500/- was paid to vendor Krishan Singh. The vendor was identified by Lambardar Rai Singh and Tarsem and sale deed was got registered. In November, 1992 mutation in his name was attested and sanctioned. After about one month, Krishan Singh ( PW2) came and apprised that he had never sold the land to him and inquired as to from whom land was purchased by him. PW4 Hari Singh then deposed that he told Krishan Singh (PW2) having purchased and from the real owner, namely, Krishan Singh. But, Krishan Singh (PW2) told that he had never sold the land to him and that some body else impersonated him. Then, according to PW4 Hari Singh, he came to know that he had been defrauded and cheated. He identified Tarsem Singh and Rai Singh to be the same person, who defrauded him. It is also narrated by him that had purchased land from Krishan Singh on representation of Tarsem Singh and Rai Singh. According to him, at that time he was knowing both of them, but not knowing vendor Krishan Singh. At the time of execution of the sale deed, vendor Krishan Singh was identified by Rai Singh and also 6 appended his signature in Urdu and Tarsem Singh signed in English. It has also come in his deposition that vendor Krishan Singh was in between 25 to 35 years of age and real Krishan Singh (PW2) was in between 62 to 65 years of age. 18. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid sequence of the prosecution evidence and narration of real owner of the land PW2 Krishan Singh that he is son of Jagat Singh aged 68 years. Whereas impersonator, who had claimed himself to be the real owner, was tof the age in between 25 to 30 years. That impersonator was son of Sita Ram, as recorded in death certificate (Ex. PW4/A), whereas real owner Krishan Singh is son of Jagat Singh and was about 65 years of age at the time of execution of the alleged sale deed. This difference in ages of the impersonator and the real owner, clearly reflect that some body else impersonated him as owner of the land.” 8. The finding has been reproduced in some detail so as to set all doubts at rest as to whether the learned trial Court has discharged its duty as an Appellate Court. 9. The submissions on behalf of the accused that his specimen signatures could not have been taken/or if taken, could not be used against him was rejected and rightly so. I find no illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Appellate 7 Court. Having perused the record as also the judgments of the two courts below, I find no infirmity either in appreciation of evidence or in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Courts below. I may not persuaded to that whole these findings are perverse or such that no reasonable man arrived at the conclusion after dispassionate evidence on record. 10. On the question of sentence, the learned trial holds that Rai Singh was aged about 73 years at the time of sentencing. His revision has been rejected by this Court on 14th September, 2010, but considering his age he was granted benefit of provisions of The Probation of Offenders Act in Cr. Rev. 32/2004. 11. Looking to the facts of this case, I find no such circumstance to deal with the case of the petitioner in the same manner. Not only has the petitioner has successfully dodged the process issued by this Court but he would also not obey the warrants issued to procure his presence. 12. The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months under Section 468, IPC, the other sentences shall run concurrently and are affirmed as such. In these circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed. Direction is issued to the trial Court to ensure that the sentence is dutifully executed. 13. Revision petition is disposed of. Bail bonds furnished shall stands forfeited. ( Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. 6th May, 2011, (jai)