IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1122 of 2000 Date of decision: 26th February, 2009 Gurjant Singh and another … Petitioners Versus Ravinder Kumar … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset has stated that petitioners have been acquitted for offence under Section 465 and 468 IPC, as it was held that jamabandi (Ex.P-5) relied upon by the petitioners was not forged. However, counsel for the petitioner has stated that two courts below have found that agreement to sell was executed. Petitioners had received earnest money of Rs.50,000/-, even though they were not owner of the land, for which agreement to sell was executed. On the observation made by the Court that Rs.50,000/- received by the petitioners was very valuable in the year 1986 and petitioners should compensate the complainant by paying adequate interest, cost of litigation and expenses incurred by the complainant, counsel for the petitioner has stated that it will be unjust to the accused, who had received Rs.50,000/- in year 1986. Therefore, in view of this Criminal Revision No.1122 of 2000 submission made by the counsel, it will be necessary to examine the factual matrix of the case and the evidence led by the parties. Ravinder Kumar son of Mohan Lal had filed criminal complaint in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka for offence under Section 420, 465, 467, 471, 468 and 34 IPC. In the complaint, it was stated that complainant was resident of Abohar and had known the accused personally. It was stated that the accused approached the complainant and presented a jamabandi dated 4th February, 1986, according to which accused were the owners in possession of the land. Jamabandi was prepared by Inder Lal. As per jamabandi, petitioners were reflected to be owners of 13 kanal and 17 marlas of land. On 6th February, 1986, complainant and the accused entered into an agreement to sell, which was drawn by Deed Writer Sushil Kumar Ahuja. Rs.50,000/- were paid as earnest money to the accused. 1st February, 1987 was fixed as a date for execution of the sale deed. It is stated that 1st February, 1987 was Sunday, therefore on the next date, i.e. 2nd February, 1987, complainant waited for the accused in the office of Sub-Registrar, where they had not cause appearance. On 6th February, 1986, complainant along with Girdhari Lal Taneja, Raj Kishan and Khem Chand approached the accused and requested them to effect the sale deed. The accused petitioners had put off the complainant on one pretext or the other. They also stated that they will return double the money in case sale deed is not effected. The complainant for filing the suit, approached the revenue authorities and learnt that accused petitioners were not owners of the land and they had also forged and fabricated the jamabandi, which was shown to the complainant and on strength of which, agreement to sell was executed. Complaint was filed. Complainant led preliminary evidence. Accused were summoned to stand trial. 2 Criminal Revision No.1122 of 2000 Pre-charge evidence was led. Petitioners were charged for offence under Section 420, 465, 468 and 34 IPC. Complainant Ravinder Kumar appeared as PW-1. He examined Raj Kishan as PW-2 and Khem Chand as PW-3 and Girdhari Lal as PW-4. Harbans Lal Stamp Vendor appeared as PW-5, Sushil Kumar Deed Writer as PW-6, Inder Pal Patwari as PW-7 and Wazir Singh Patwari as PW-8. Besides, various documents were also exhibited. Marginal witnesses to the agreement to sell have been examined. They have proved that Rs.50,000/- was received by the petitioners as earnest money from the complainant PW-1 Ravinder Kumar. The trial Court held that necessary evidence regarding jamabandi (Ex.P-5) to be forged is lacking, therefore, it granted benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused under Section 465 and 468 IPC. It was further held that ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC are made out. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, petitioners had filed an appeal. Same was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Appellate Court below held that agreement to sell (Ex.P-2) has been proved. Accused petitioners have not denied their signatures on the agreement to sell. Rather they have admitted their signatures on Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-2/A. The appellate Court further held that there are documents on the record, which complete the chain of the prosecution. Court considered Ex.P-3, extract of the register of the Document Writer and also the extract of the register of Stamp Vendor (Ex.PW-6/A). An argument was raised that in pursuance of agreement to sell (Ex.P-2), no suit for specific performance was filed. Since petitioners were not possessed of any land and were not owner of the land mentioned in the agreement to sell, filing of a suit for specific performance on the part of the complainant would have been a futile exercise. Accordingly, I am of 3 Criminal Revision No.1122 of 2000 the view that two courts below have meticulously adjudged the facts and circumstances of the case and have rightly held the petitioners to be guilty under Section 420 IPC. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that in year 1986, complainant has been duped of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioners. They had induced him to part with such a heavy amount. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the occurrence pertains to year 1986, therefore, even though complaint was filed in year 1990, sentence awarded upon the petitioners be reduced. Taking into consideration protracted trial, sentence awarded upon the petitioners is reduced from 2 years to 1 ½ years. With this modification in the sentence, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 26, 2009 rps 4