Crl.Rev.No. 1694 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1694 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.8.2011 Jaggar Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.A.K Walia, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners had faced the trial under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), 1860 in FIR No.78 dated 1.7.2000 registered at Police Station City Mansa. The trial Court vide judgment dated 4.12.2009 acquitted the petitioners of the charge framed against them. Aggrieved by the said judgment, complainant-Sukhdev Singh, preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 2.7.2011 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the trial Court for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law after re-appreciation of evidence. Hence, the present petition by the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Sukhdev Singh was not competent to file the appeal. Additional Crl.Rev.No. 1694 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Sessions Judge had erred in allowing the appeal as no case was made out against the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Sukhdev Singh, nephew of the complainant had preferred the appeal against the judgment of acquittal on account of death of the complainant. Section 2 (wa)Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir" Thus, as per the above provision, legal heir of a person, who has suffered any loss or injury, can be classified as a victim. As per amended Section 372 Cr.P.C., a victim shall also have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused. There is nothing on record to suggest that Sukhdev Singh was not the legal heir of the deceased complainant Dhan Singh. On merits, the judgment of the trial Court was liable to be set aside as the trial Court had failed to give any reasons while acquitting the petitioners of the charge framed against them. Para No.7 of the judgment of the trial Court reads as under:- “The statement of the complainant which is sole witness in which he has stated the allegations agains the accused placing reliance on Court decree passed by Smt.Gurmit Crl.Rev.No. 1694 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Kaur, learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Mansa does not go to prove the facts of forgery, not by proving the record to corroborate and proving the alleged facts regarding fabrication on record worked out by the criminals depicting their work and conduct. Thus, the offence is not proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt against the above mentioned accused. Hence, they stands acquitted. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stands discharged. File be consigned to the record room.” It has been noticed by the Appellate Court that the civil Court held that the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1992 werea result of fraud, misrepresentation and impersonation and also ordered the registration of criminal case against the defendants and Dhan Singh. A perusal of para 7 of the judgment of the trial Court, reproduced above, reveals that the judgment passed by the Civil Court had not been discussed at all and the accused have been acquitted of the charge framed against them. In these circumstances, the learned Appellate Court had rightly allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 02, 2011 anita