In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-29904 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:7.12.2010 Harminder Singh Badesha .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is Lambardar of Village Dugri, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and is alleged to have attested a wrong pedigree table on the mutation of inheritance of Prem Chand who had died. The husband of the complainant Kamaljit, namely, Bharat Bhushan had predeceased his father Prem Chand. On the death of the father-in-law of the complainant, namely, Prem Chand, a pedigree table was prepared on Mutation No.43032 of Village Peeru Banda. In the said mutation, the pedigree table of Prem Chand (deceased) was prepared in which Bharat Bhushan is shown as the deceased son of Prem Chand. However, the other heirs of Bharat Bhushan, who has died and are entitled to succeed to the estate of Prem Chand are not mentioned. It is submitted that the complainant being the widow of a pre- deceased son (Bharat Bhushan) of the deceased Prem Chand would be Cr. Misc. No.M-29904 of 2010 [2] entitled to share in the estate of Prem Chand. Besides, her two children also have shares in the estate of Prem Chand. Despite the said position, the petitioner as Lambardar attested false pedigree table. The stand of the petitioner is that he attested the pedigree table on the mutation with respect to the estate of Prem Chand father of Bharat Bhushan on the asking of the Patwari Chamkaur Singh. The Patwari has been exonerated by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. The petitioner is not involved in any other case earlier. It may be noticed that on the basis of mutation that was done the persons in whose favour the mutation was sanctioned had sold the land of Prem Chand for a consideration of `35 Lacs. In any case, the petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Sumit Sud, Police Station, Division No.5 (Civil Lines), Ludhiana City has submitted that the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. The case is based primarily on documentary evidence. The prosecution is to establish and prove its case against the petitioner by leading evidence. In the circumstances, the interim bail granted on 8.10.2010 is made absolute. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. December 7, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*