IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1319 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 5, 2011 INDER SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS JETHA SINGH & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.1. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This revision petition is directed against order dated 13.3.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. 2 The facts of the case are that Jetha Singh (respondent No.1) instituted a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, alleging commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 472, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, with the allegation that Fauja Singh, through his Power of Attorney-Daljit Singh, executed a sale deed on 19.7.1996 in respect of land measuring 21 kanals 7 marlas, detailed in the complaint, and received the entire sale consideration of ` 74,500/-. Jetha Singh happens to be son of Fauja Singh. The allegation made in the complaint is that the accused forged a false General Power of Attorney dated Criminal Revision No.1319 of 2010 2 31.10.1996 which is shown to be executed in favour of Jagtar Singh son of Najjar Singh. The sale deed was executed on 6.1.1997 with regard to the land purchased by the complainant vide sale deed dated 19.7.1996. 3 In preliminary evidence, the complainant appeared as PW-1 and examined Daljit Singh as PW-2 and Kashmir Singh as PW-3. The accused were summoned to stand trial. 4 In pre-charge evidence, the complainant appeared as CW-1 and, thereafter, closed his pre-charge evidence. The factum of closure of pre-charge evidence is not in dispute. The accused have been discharged by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, while giving reasons in para-6 of judgment dated 8.12.2006. It has been found that there is no evidence on record that Fauja Singh was impersonated by some other person. Even in the testimony of the complainant as CW-1, the said fact has not been stated. It has simply been stated that Power of Attorney in favour of Jagtar Singh was forged. Neither the Power of Attorney had been produced nor proved on the record. Even the sale deed was not produced. In view of the scanty evidence, the accused have been discharged. 5 This court does not find any error in the order of discharge because the evidence brought on record was limited and wholly inadequate to indicate commission of any offence. 6 It appears that some civil suit was decided in favour of the complainant whereupon a revision petition was preferred, which has been allowed vide the impugned order. 7 In the considered opinion of this court, the evidence Criminal Revision No.1319 of 2010 3 produced before a court is relevant for consideration and passing appropriate orders, as required by law. The complainant closed his evidence of his own before the court of Magistrate. In such circumstances, it becomes evident that an opportunity to lead evidence was given and, therefore, no manifest injustice had been caused to the complainant. Any event or some other document that had not been produced before the trial court, cannot be made the basis for reopening the case against the petitioner and other accused at a subsequent stage, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 8 The civil suit was decided in favour of respondent No.1, which has been made the basis for filing the revision petition. No such document was produced before the Magistrate, for his consideration. Along with the revision petition, an application under Section 311 read with Section 391, Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed with the request that the same be taken into account and the complainant be allowed to re-examine himself. 9 Vide the impugned order, the revision petition could not have been allowed and the case remanded back to the trial court to give two effective opportunities to the complainant to lead pre-charge evidence. This is particularly so because the complainant closed his evidence of his own. Rather, the order passed by the Magistrate indicates that the most relevant document i.e. the Power of Attorney, was not even produced. No specific statement was given indicating its forgery. Criminal Revision No.1319 of 2010 4 10 By way of supplementing the evidence by way of additional evidence, lacunae cannot be allowed to be filled up in the manner permitted by the lower revisional court. On passing of order by the trial Magistrate, the accused were discharged. Per se, no illegality has been pointed out in the order passed by the Magistrate. Collectively considered, the order passed by the lower revisional court is found to have been passed on illegal basis, causing manifest injustice to the petitioners. 11 The petition is, accordingly, allowed. Order dated 13.3.2010, passed by the revisional court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is hereby set aside. July 5, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?