Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2010(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: October 3, 2011 Bant Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Gurmail Singh & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Crl. Misc. No.27204 of 2010 I have considered the prayer of condonation of delay, which is inordinate. Though the counsel has explained that he had filed an appeal against the same, he choose wrong forum on his own. No case for condoning the delay is made out. Still I have considered and applied myself to the merits of the controversy. Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2010 The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Moonak, recording the acquittal of the respondents for an offence registered against them under Section 420 IPC. The complainant, who is a brother of the respondents- accused had filed an application and their land had been partitioned on 9.6.1997 and all the brothers were separately Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2010(O&M) -2- cultivating their land. Respondents-brothers namely Gurmail Singh and Manjit Singh had executed a sale deed on 24.5.2001. As per the petitioner, even the purchasers had the knowledge about the partition of the land. Alleging that they have intentionally executed the sale deed, the petitioner moved an application to S.P. (HQ) for taking action against his own brothers. The SHO had also intervened, but had no effect. The allegation is that the land has been sold in excess of their share by the brothers, which would make out a case for interference. The parties had led evidence and the Trial Court after appreciation thereof has come to the conclusion that even family partition is not proved. Even no witness of the family partition was examined. Only complainant himself came in the witness box. Accordingly, the Trial Court has gone rightly into the aspect to see whether the excess land more than their shares has been sold by the respondents or not. Even it was found that the sale deed has not been scribed by the accused, ultimately, the Court has found that prosecution has miserably failed to prove his case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. Finding also was that the allegation that the respondents had sold excess land more than their share and specific Khasra no. also could not be proved. Thus, even inducement was not established. Except for stating that the respondents had sold excess land more than their share, no viable submission is made before me by the counsel for the petitioner. Though the Court, while interfering in the appeal or Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2010(O&M) -3- revision from the judgment of acquittal by the trial Courts, is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and can come to an independent conclusions, but this is not to be done as a matter of routine as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(10) SCC 461. In this case, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if from the same set of evidence, two views are possible and if the trial Court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial Court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial Court is not based on any material on record, it should not interfere merely because another conclusion is possible to reverse the finding of the trial Court. In the present case, no exception can be taken to the view taken by the trial Court. Each and every circumstance relied upon by the prosecution has been taken into consideration and discussed by the trial Court. There is no possibility of even taking any other view than the one taken by the trial Court. Even if that was possible, as per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this cannot be done as no perversity is seen and rather the view taken by the trial Court is reasonable. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out in the order of acquittal returned by the trial Court. The present revision is, accordingly, dismissed. October 03, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE