IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.331 of 2009 Date of decision: 20th March, 2009 Amru Ram … Petitioner Versus Gurmit Kaur and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Gurmit Kaur, Ujager Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Manjinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Tirath Ram @ Manga were convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Jalandhar vide its judgment dated 8th August, 2006. They were sentenced under Section 148 IPC to under rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 447 IPC read with Section 149 IPC to pay fine of Rs.300/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. They were also sentenced under Section 427 IPC read with Section 149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved against their conviction, above said accused had filed a criminal appeal bearing No. 08 of 08. The same was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar had acquitted the above said accused. Against the acquittal of the accused respondents, no appeal has been preferred by the State. Complainant has filed the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No.331 of 2009 Prosecution case, from the perusal of orders of two courts below, emerges as under. On 6th June, 1998, ASI Satpal along with other companion police officials was present at the turning of village Chitti in connection with nakabandi. There complainant Amru presented himself and his statement was recorded, it was stated that he is an agriculturist. There was a dispute of passage with Gurmit Kaur accused, which was subject matter of civil litigation. It was further alleged that land of Gurmit Kaur measuring 7 kanals 11 marlas was purchased by way of sale deed on 1st July, 1964 from Bhag Singh and Dilbagh Singh and the possession of the disputed land is in the name of the complainant. It was further stated that on 5th June, 1998 accused Gurpreet Singh came on a tractor. Kishan son of Madan Lal, who was owner of the tractor, was also sitting on the tractor. Gurmit Kaur, Manjinder Singh, Ujagar Singh, Tirath @ Manga and Bindu were armed with Dangs and Sticks and they had destroyed the crop and ploughed the field. The occurrence was witnessed by Gurbax Kaur and Mukhtiar Singh. Prosecution examined Darshan Lal PW-1, who proved the ownership of the tractor. ASI Satpal PW-2 had arrested the various accused on various days. Gurdial Singh PW-3 stated that on the day of occurrence, accused came in the land in question. They had ploughed the Bajra and crop worth Rs.5000/- was damaged. ASI Phuman Singh PW-6 had proved the statement Ex.PA made by Amru Ram complainant. On the basis of statement (Ex.PA/1), FIR (Ex.PB) was recorded. During investigation Messi tractor bearing registration No.PB-08-8717 was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PW3/A). Rajesh Kumar Patwari PW-7 had proved jama bandi (Ex.PW6/B) and khasra girdawri (PW6/A). Trial Court had relied upon the testimony of Gurdial Singh PW-3, Amru PW-4 and Gurbax Kaur PW-5 to hold that complainant party 2 Criminal Revision No.331 of 2009 was in possession of the land and the accused had destroyed the crop. Statement of Rakesh Kumar Patwari PW-7 was also taken on record as he has proved jama bandi and khasra girdawri to show possession of the complainant party. Appellate Court held that even though khasra girdawris are taken into consideration, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the land, which was ploughed by the accused party, as the one which was in possession of the complainant. After examining the entire evidence, Court came to the conclusion that exclusive possession of the complainant over the property in question is doubtful. The findings of the appellate Court below are not perverse. The view taken by the appellate Court below is the one which is possible. This Court had noticed the entire case law regarding the powers of this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction in case of acquittal. The Court had considered the law laid down in ‘Mahendra Partap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and another’ AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707, in which Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon ‘D.Stephens vs. Nosibolla’, AIR 1951 SC 196, to hold that the High Court cannot re-weigh, re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence. The observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram’, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2145 (V 60 C 352); ‘Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh’, (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 444; ‘Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others’, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 181; ‘Vimal Singh vs. Khuman Singh and another’, (1998) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1574 and in ‘Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar’, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907 were also considered and it was held that until and unless any legal infirmity in the procedure or in the conduct of trial or patent illegality is pointed out, the revisional Court will not interfere. 3 Criminal Revision No.331 of 2009 Having said so, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 20, 2009 rps 4