Criminal Misc. No.168-MA of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.168-MA of 2007 Date of decision : 4.9.2008 Paramjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Piara Singh and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.S.Kang, Advocate for respondent no.1. S. D. ANAND, J. The complainant-appellant has filed a plea for leave to appeal against the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate qua respondents/accused Piara Singh and Karnail Singh. It is common ground, and in even otherwise apparent from the record, that respondents/accused were only the proposed vendees with whom Bakhshish Singh ( an accused who came to be convicted) had entered into an agreement dated 28.5.1992 to sell the indicated land to them. Bakhshish Singh afore-mentioned executed four sale deeds ( one dated 22.6.1992, another dated 5.8.1992 and two dated 10.9.1992) in favour of sons of Hoshiar Singh. The presentation made by the complainant-appellant was that Bakhshish Singh forged the impugned agreement dated 28.5.1992 in order to defeat the claim of vendees under the four sale deeds. Bakhshish Singh has otherwise filed a civil suit to obtain the invalidation of the sale deeds afore-mentioned. Criminal Misc. No.168-MA of 2007 -2- **** In the context of the finding of indictment qua Bakhshish Singh and the exoneration of respondents/accused, learned Trial Magistrate made relevant observations which are reproduced as under:- “I am of the view that Bakhshish Singh definitely committed an offence. However, the Bakhshish Singh of the other co- accused i.e. Karnail Singh and Piara Singh and the only conspiracy can be made with accused G.P. Singh, Stamp vendor because he issued the stamp paper in the back date and both the accused i.e. Bakhshish Singh as well as accused G.P.Singh could not rebut the factum regarding issuance of stamp paper on 28.5.1992.” Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argues that respondents-accused Piara Singh and Karnail Singh, being the beneficiaries under the impugned agreement dated 28.5.1992, cannot escape penal liability for the ante-dating/forgery of that agreement. The view advocated on behalf of the appellant is not sustainable. The respondents-accused were merely parties to the impugned agreement. There was no evidence to the effect that they were privy to the forgery of that agreement. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. Criminal Misc. No.168-MA of 2007 -3- **** In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and is ordered accordingly. September 04, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE