Crl. Revision No. 2205 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 2205 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.09.2011 Raj Singh and another ....Petitioners Vs. The State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Narnaul, dismissing the appeal preferred by the accused- petitioners (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioners'), ordered for releasing them on probation. The factual matrix of the case is that Bharat Singh son of Luxman son of Ramsahai died in the year 1997. Complainant Nirmala is widow of Bharat Singh. The land belonging to Bharat Singh and of the other co-sharers was duly partitioned as per the compromise. The legal heirs of Bharat Singh i.e. Rahul, Ritu and Nirmala, vide agreement to sell dated 29.06.2001, sold their share of land to Subash for a consideration of Rs.6,35,000/-. The possession of the aforesaid land was also given to Subhash. The petitioners in collusion with each other, hatched a conspiracy and Crl. Revision No. 2205 of 2011 (O&M) 2 forged an ante dated (10.09.1995) rent note (Mark-A), purported to have been executed by deceased Bharat Singh in favour of accused-Raj Singh, vide which, the land sold to Subhash was shown to have been leased out by Bharat Singh to the petitioner- Raj Singh for a period of 10 years. The aforesaid forged rent note was scribed by petitioner-Bhupinder Singh. The petitioner-Satbir Singh attested the rent note as a witness and also made his endorsement to the effect that deceased Bharat Singh had received an amount of Rs.7200/- from Raj Singh and handed over the possession of the said land to him. The complainant alleged that Bharat Singh was neither in possession of the land nor he leased out the same to Raj Singh nor ever executed any rent note in his favour. On the basis of complaint Ex.PW/A, filed by the complainant under the orders of the Court, first information report was registered and on completion of investigation, charge report was submitted in Court. The accused were charged under Sections 420, 468, 120-B IPC, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, they did not examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted into conviction. Their appeal was also dismissed. It is apparent from the evidence on the record that the petitioners in connivance with each other forged the lease deed. Crl. Revision No. 2205 of 2011 (O&M) 3 The impugned judgment is well founded and well reasoned, as such, the same does not call for any interference. Dismissed in limine. (A.N.JINDAL) 21.09.2011 JUDGE ajp