Crl.Rev.No.1702 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1702 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 06 .08.2009 Darshan Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.D.Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sunam dated 18.3.2006, wherein benefit of doubt has been given to the accused- respondents as prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt the charges against them under Sections 427/447/148/149/506 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence so led by the prosecution, which goes beyond doubt to show that the possession of the land in question was with the complainant which he was holding on the basis of the general power of attorney given to him by the owner of the land. His contention is that the order dated 19.5.2000 passed by the High Court in C.W.P.No.7375 of 1999 has been mis-interpreted and, therefore, since the possession of the land in question was with the petitioner, the benefit of doubt has been wrongly given to the accused-respondents by the trial Court. Crl.Rev.No.1702 of 2006 -2- I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. What is revealed from the perusal of the records is that the land in question was declared surplus and the same was allotted to Bachan Singh @ Bachna. In pursuance thereto, the Collector Agrarian, Sunam vide order dated 12.3.1999 ordered for the delivery of the possession to Bachan Singh. Complainant-petitoner Darshan Singh was the power of attorney holder of Bachan Singh @ Bachna. The said order dated 12.3.1999 was challenged by the respondents-accused by way of Civil Writ Petition No.7375 of 1999 in this Court when vide order dated 19.5.2000 the operation of the order dated 12.3.1999 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector Agrarian, Sunam was stayed. It is an admitted position that the said order of stay was still continuing when the case was decided by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sunam on 18.3.2006. The alleged occurrence is dated 7.6.2000. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the order dated 12.3.1999 had been acted upon and the possession of the property in question was legally handed over to the original owner Bachan Singh to whom the land was allotted or even to the power of attorney holder Darshan Singh-complainant. The accused- respondents have placed on record Exhibit D-2 which shows the possession of Bant Singh and Rajinder Singh over the property in question. Exhibit D-3 is the jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 wherein it is recorded that the actual cultaving possession was with Gurdev Singh and Bant Singh, father of the accused as well as Rajinder Singh. On the date of occurrence i.e. 7.6.2000, the order of the High court in C.W.P.No.7375 of 1999 dated 19.5.2000 staying the order dated 12.3.1999 passed by the Collector Crl.Rev.No.1702 of 2006 -3- Agrarian, Sunam, was in force. The accused-respondents having proved their possession over the land in question and further in the light of the stay granted by the High Court on 19.5.2000 i.e. before the date of incident, the possession of the accused over the land in question stood established. Further, PW-1 Darshan Singh (Complainant) in his cross-examination has admitted that the accused were cultivating the land earlier. PW-4 Harbans Singh in his cross-examination has admitted that the land in dispute was vacant and the same was being cultivated from the year 2000 onwards. Thus, the finding as recorded by the trial Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. That apart, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR. The alleged date of occurrence is 7.6.2000 whereas the FIR was recorded on 9.6.2000. There is no plausible explanation forthcoming for the said delay by the prosecution. The alleged tractor and other things used in the commission of crime have not been produced by the prosecution in order to prove the incident in Court in accordance with law. Further more, PW-2 Labh Singh had not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In the cross-examination, the Public Prosecutor could not elicit anything nor anything emerged therefrom which could support the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer could not be examined because of his demise but no other witness had stepped into the witness box to prove the visual site plan and other documents which were certainly vital for proving the case of the prosecution against the accused. All this weakened the case of the prosecution and caused a dent in the credibility of the evidence and the investigation process. Crl.Rev.No.1702 of 2006 -4- In this view of the matter, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below while giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused and the findings as recorded by it are based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. August 06, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE