Crl.Rev.No. 1700 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1700 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.02.2009 Jit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Beant Singh, Surinderpal Singh and Bikker Singh- respondent Nos.2 to 4 were tried for an offence under Sections 467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) in FIR No.113 dated 12.11.2002 registered at Police Station Sherpur. However, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 28.8.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhuri. Aggrieved by the same, Jit Singh-petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos.2 and 3 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 6.9.2002, Crl.Rev.No. 1700 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Jit Singh son of Labh Singh resident of Nanaksar Basti, Barnala moved an application to the SSP Barnala. The said application bearing No.2674/VP dated 6.9.2002 was marked by the SSP to the Inspector E.O.Wing, Barnala for inquiry. The applicant stated that one Ajit Singh (father-in-law of the daughter of the applicant) was working as an S.L.A. in the Government Senior Secondary School, Mullowal. He expired on 8.7.1997. The said Ajit Singh left behind three legal heirs, Beant Singh, Surinderpal Singh and Gurchain Singh. Gurchain Singh had expired on 2.9.1993. Gurchain Singh left behind four legal heirs namely his widow Mandip Kaur, his daughter Jaswinder Kaur and sons Jasbir Singh and Amandeep Singh (all being minors). After the death of Gurchain Singh, the marriage of Mandip Kaur was solemnized with Surinderpal Singh (accused No.2). Later Beant Singh and Surinderpal Singh filed succession application no.21 dated 28.8.2000 in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dhuri. They gave false testimony in the court with a view to deprive the minor children of Gurchain Singh of their share in the estate of their grand father. Thereby accused Beant Singh and Surinderpal Singh were able to obtain a false certificate in their favour and thereby they were able to obtain a false Crl.Rev.No. 1700 of 2008 (O&M) 3 certificate in their favour and thereby they were able to withdrew the various amounts due after the death of Ajit Singh. The applicant claimed that he is the maternal grand father of the minor children who are under his care and custody. The applicant, therefore prayed that action be taken against the accused under the appropriate provisions of the penal code for their wrongful acts. Inspector Sukhwinder Singh, Incharge E.O. Wing Barnala submitted his enquiry report to the SSP Barnala who sought the opinion of the Deputy D.A. Legal. On the basis of D.A. Legal report case under Sections 467/468/471/120-B was recommended for registration by the SSP. FIR was registered. Initial investigations in the case was conducted by SI Kulwant Singh of Police Post, Ranika. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Before the accused could be arrested they moved application for anticipatory bail. The arrest of the accused was stayed by the Court of Sessions. The accused joined the investigation. Later offence under Section 420 IPC was added. Later investigation was handed over to Sukhwinder Singh Inspector. Certified copies of the statements of the witnesses and the order of the Court of Sh.D.S.Johal, PCS, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Barnala on the guardianship application was obtained, concerned record Crl.Rev.No. 1700 of 2008 (O&M) 4 was also obtained from the Government Senior Secondary School, Mullowal. During investigation Jora Singh Headmaster Government Senior Secondary School, Mulowal was found innocent. Challan against accused Surinderpal Singh, Beant Singh and Bikker Singh under Sections 467/468/471/420/120-B IPC was presented in the Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents No. 2 and 3 had filed the false claim in the Court alleging themselves to be the sole legal heirs of deceased Ajit Singh, while seeking the succession certificate. Respondents No.2 and 4 made false statements in the Court that they were sole legal heirs of Ajit Singh. Hence, respondents No. 2 and 3 with the assistance of respondent No.4 were able to get the succession certificate in their favour after the death of Ajit Singh. Learned trial Court has held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. No forgery or fabrication of any document was proved on record. The prosecution case was that accused Beant Singh and Surinderpal Singh (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) in connivance with accused Bikker Singh (respondent No.4) had been successful in getting the succession certificate in their favour. The said accused Beant Singh and Surinderpal Singh (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) by way of their application for succession certificate had posed themselves as the sole legal heirs of deceased Ajit Singh. Crl.Rev.No. 1700 of 2008 (O&M) 5 Accused Beant Singh and Bikker Singh (respondents No. 2 and 4) made statements in the Court that accused Beant Singh and Surinderpal Singh (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) were the sole legal heirs of deceased Ajit Singh. Thus, the accused had made false pleadings and given false evidence before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (Sr.Divn.) Dhuri. As per Section 191 IPC, whoever, being legally bound on an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false and which he neither knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true is said to give false evidence. Punishment for giving false evidence has been provided under Section 193 IPC. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C” for short) provides that cognizance with regard to offence under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is to be taken only by the Court before whom the offence was allegedly committed or by some Court to which the said Court is subordinate. In these circumstance, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent Nos. 2 to 4 of the charge framed against them as the Court before whom the false evidence had been allegedly led, had not taken cognizance of the matter nor it was taken by the Court to which the said Court was subordinate. Hence, the impugned order calls for no interference. Crl.Rev.No. 1700 of 2008 (O&M) 6 It has been held by the Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C., a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE February 17, 2009 anita