Criminal Revision No. 2105 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2105 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.8.2009 Krishan Lal ..... Petitioner vs Harvinder Singh and another ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. NPS Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 10.8.2009 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was partly accepted and he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 420 and 465 IPC and upheld the conviction under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from two years to one year. The brief facts are that complainant Waryam Singh filed complaint against petitioner Krishan Lal, Aasa Singh and Santokh Singh, in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala Cantt. Waryam Singh complainant died during the pendency of trial and his son Harvinder Singh was allowed to pursue the complaint. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner wanted to take forcible possession of House No. 37, Near Sewa Samiti Girls High School, Ghosi Mandi, Ranjit Nagar, Ambala Cantt. by raising false pleas. The petitioner filed civil suit against the complainant with regard to the house in question. But vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.1994, the complainant was declared exclusive owner of the house by the District Judge, Ambala. The appeal filed by the petitioner against that judgment was dismissed by this court on 14.12.1995 in limine. Earlier, the petitioner was prosecuted and convicted for having committed house tresspass by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala Cantt., vide judgment dated 3.2.1982. However, he was released on probation. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment in the Court of Sessions and revision in this court were dismissed. Inspite of above litigation, in which the petitioner failed he conspired with Aasa Singh and Santokh Singh to grab the house in question and executed a gift deed dated 15.12.1995 in favour of Aasa Singh. Santokh Singh was the Criminal Revision No. 2105 of 2009 (2) attesting witness of the gift-deed. Both Aasa Singh and Santokh Singh were residing adjacent to the disputed property and were aware of the civil and criminal litigation between the parties and also the fact that the petitioner had lost the same up to this Court. Instead of that Aasa Singh accepted the gift deed as a donee to forcibly dispossess him from the said house. In that process, Aasa Singh had also taken forcible possession of the portion of the disputed house and had thrown away his belongings from the house and had also snatched some articles on 18.1.1996. For this incident a criminal case under Section 448 IPC was registered against the petitioner, Aasa Singh and Santokh Singh. The complainant had also filed a civil suit against the petitioner and other persons in which stay was granted. With these allegations, the complaint was filed under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. After recording preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned and tried by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. The complainant examined six witnesses, namely, PW1 Surinder Mohan, PW2 HC Jai Narain, PW3 Udham Singh, PW4 Darshan Kumar Jindal, PW5 Amit Jain, and he himself had appeared as PW6. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the allegations levelled against him. Considering the evidence brought on record in the form of statements of witnesses and documents, learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 28.2.2007, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- Offence under Section Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in default of payment of fine 420 IPC RI for two years Rs. 500/- RI for three months 465 IPC RI for six months Rs. 500/- RI for fifteen days 467 IPC RI for two years Rs. 1,000/- RI for three months 468 IPC RI for one year Rs. 500/- RI for one month 471 IPC RI for one year Rs. 500/- RI for one month Feeling aggrieved, against the order dated 28.2.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala Cantt. the petitioner filed appeal which was partly accepted, as aforesaid, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide order dated 10.8.2009. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below has not appreciated the evidence led by the petitioner that at the time of execution of alleged gift-deed the President of the Gurudwara and the complainant (since deceased) were present which clearly shows that the petitioner has not played any fraud with the complainant. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. Criminal Revision No. 2105 of 2009 (3) PW1 Surinder Mohan, Registration Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ambala Cantt. has proved the gift-deed executed by accused- petitioner on 15.12.1995, Ex. PD, in favour of Gurudwara Dera Bhai Jassa Singh. He has also produced register wherein entry of the gift-deed as well as signatures of the petitioner and Aasa Singh were present and not of the complainant Waryam Singh. Moreover, when the petitioner had lost the litigation upto this court on 14.12.1995 in which the complainant was declared as exclusive owner of the house in question, the petitioner and other accused knowingly committed forgery in executing the gift- deed pertaining to the property owned by the complainant. In the presence of the documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the learned court below has committed any illegality in upholding the verdict of the trial court. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below has rightly acquitted the petitioner under Sections 420 and 465 IPC by appreciating the evidence led by the petitioner but wrongly convicted under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC by taking into consideration the same evidence, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The court below after considering the evidence led by the parties rightly found that offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out as the complainant was in possession of the house in question and had not paid any money. The petitioner had cheated the complainant by forging document for which he was found guilty. As far as Section 465 IPC is concerned, the court below has rightly held that since the accused-petitioner has been held guilty under Section 467 IPC, there was no question of his conviction under Section 465 IPC separately. In view of this, it cannot be said that the court below has appreciated the evidence in two ways. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is more than 75 years of age and had undergone bye-pass surgery in the year 2002. The case pertains to the year 1996 and since then he is moving in the corridors of the courts. Since he has suffered a lot and learnt a lesson, the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959 should be granted to him. Even case for grant of probation to the petitioner is also not made out seeing his previous conduct. He is not the first offender. As has been noticed in the judgment of the court below, he was earlier released on probation twice and granting probation third time would mean to encourage the mischievous people to commit more crime. Once a person has not improved himself from his earlier punishments, his bonafides can certainly be doubted. Moreover, the court below by taking a lenient view and considering the age factor of the petitioner has reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him from two years to one year. Criminal Revision No. 2105 of 2009 (4) In view of the above, it cannot be said that the court below has committed any error in convicting the petitioner. Accordingly, findings of the court below are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed being without merit. 25.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge