CRR No. 479 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 479 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.5.2011 Sarwan Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus Amarjeet Singh and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. JORA SINGH, J. Sarwan Kumar, preferred this revision to challenge the judgment dated 14.10.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, in Criminal Appeal No. 6 dated 20.2.2010. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.2.2010, in case FIR No. 72 dated 17.6.2002, registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/511 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Panjokhra, rendered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, was dismissed. Story, in brief, is that on 13.4.2002, respondents-accused, cheated Sarwan Kumar-complainant/petitioner, by inducing him to execute agreement to sell dated 13.4.2002, on receipt of ` 50,000/- as earnest money. Effort was made to transfer the land. In view of the statement of Sarwan Kumar-complainant (petitioner) formal FIR was CRR No. 479 of 2011 -2- recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 120-B/420/ 467/468/471/511 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses namely, PW-1 Sarwan Kumar, PW-2 Jarnail Singh, PW-3 Amar Chand, PW-4 Anil Kumar, PW-5 Nafe Singh, PW-6 Jarnail Singh and PW-7 Gurmeet Singh. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. In defence, respondents-accused produced documentary evidence, Ex. DW-1 and Mark A and B. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, respondents-accused were acquitted of the charge levelled against them and judgment of the trial Court was upheld by the Ist Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that agreement to sell dated 13.4.2002, Ex. PW-1/B, was forged by respondents-accused to grab land. As per agreement to sell dated 13.4.2002, ` 50,000/- was shown to be paid as earnest money. In fact, complainant did not execute the agreement to sell dated 13.4.2002, nor received earnest money. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that CRR No. 479 of 2011 -3- submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any force. According to the petitioner, agreement to sell dated 13.4.2002, Ex. PW-1/B, was not executed by Sarwan Kumar nor he had received ` 50,000/-, as earnest money. On the basis of agreement to sell dated 13.4.2002, civil suit for specific performance was not instituted. In case, agreement to sell dated 13.4.2002, was not signed or thumb marked by the petitioner then no question of sale deed as per agreement to sell. On the basis of agreement to sell till today no sale deed was executed in favour of respondents-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of agreement to sell, civil suit was instituted but no reference of the civil suit. No evidence on the file that agreement to sell Ex. PW-1/B was produced in Court by the respondent-accused. Investigating Officer, was not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. PW-4 Anil Kumar, simply stated that he had sold the stamp paper to Sardara Singh. Statements of PW-5 and PW-6 are of formal nature. They have not stated a word against the respondents- accused. Ist Appellate Court, rejected the appeal against the judgment of acquittal and relevant para No. 13 of the impugned judgment is as under:- “13. It has been admitted by the Appellant and his witnesses that he has not signed the agreement to sell. It is well settled principle of law that agreement does not confer any title. Term 'Valuable Security' has been defined in Section 30 of the Indian Penal CRR No. 479 of 2011 -4- Code which read as under: “Section 30. Valuable Security”. The words valuable security denote a document, which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability or has not a certain right.” Admittedly, the alleged agreement to sell Ex. PW-1/B has not been signed by the Appellant nor any sale had taken place on the basis of the same. In the absence of the agreement, appellant has no privity of contract with the accused. The testimonies of the witnesses examined by the Appellant are of no help to him to prove the charges against the accused. I am of the considered view that the ld. Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges.” For the reasons recorded above, no reason to differ with the findings of the trial Court and the Ist Appellate Court. Revision petition without merits is dismissed. May 17, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE