IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2000 Date of decision: June 28, 2010 Nirmal Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Criminal Revision No.545 of 2004 Gurdip Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. (As Amicus curiae in Crl. R. No.1496 of 2000) Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of two connected revision petition Nos. 1496 of 2000 and 545 of 2004 having arisen out of the same judgment and are disposed of together. The case relates to the forgery of the order of the court of law. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Sh. K.K. Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, addressed a latter dated 2.8.1994 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran to investigate the case against the accused. He disclosed in his letter that the accused Nirmal Singh had presented an order Mark-X before S.D. Malooka, Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, pursuant to which he got the tube- well connection shifted in his land, whereas, no such order was passed by the court. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, investigation was conducted and it transpired that Nirmal Singh had fabricated the said order dated 31.5.1994 disclosing that the appeal was accepted and the order passed by the lower Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2000 & Criminal Revision No.545 of 2004 -2- court was set aside. During investigation, it came out that Gurdip Singh accused was an Advocate and used to sit with Kuldeep Singh, Advocate at Amritsar. Both were working as junior to Mr. V.K. Sareen Advocate. Mangal Sain was working as their Clerk. Gurdip Singh drafted the writing Ex.PW1/A which was taken to Mangal Sain, Clerk for typing. He typed the said order dated 31.5.1994 over his type writer. The said order pertained to the vacation of the stay which was presented before the Executive Engineer Punjab State Electricity Board, on the basis of which connection was shifted. Investigation further revealed that Nirmal Singh had purchased 8 acres of land from Ram Lal. There was an electric connection in the said land which was purchased by Nirmal Singh along with bore and the tube- well. However, the said land was being cultivated by Dalip Singh and Dalip Singh did not want to part with the said connection as his land adjoined the same. Dalip Singh was claiming it to be his connection, therefore, he filed a suit against Nirmal Singh restraining him from shifting the connection which was granted by the court. Nirmal Singh and Baljinder Singh filed an appeal and they wanted to stay to be vacated. The appeal had not so far been decided. On 31.5.1994, Nirmal Singh and Baljinder Singh in connivance with Mangal Sain and Gurdip Singh got forged the order dated 31.5.1994 and on the basis of the same, got shifted the connection at in their own land. As such, all the four persons were arrayed as accused. The trial court vide judgment dated 16.2.2000, convicted all the four accused and sentenced them accordingly. Their appeals were also dismissed, however, vide different judgments dated 29.11.2000 and 30.1.2004. It is pertinent to mention here that since accused Mangal Sain died, no revision petition was preferred on his behalf. Having perused the judgments, the same appear to be well founded and well reasoned. There is no denying a fact that no order vacating the stay was passed by the court of Sh.K.K. Garg, Additional District Judge, Amritsar against the order dated 14.8.1993 passed by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti and the order Ex.PW2/A is not under the seal and signatures of the court. Navdeep Singh (PW1) Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2000 & Criminal Revision No.545 of 2004 -3- while appearing in the witness box has stated that he could well identify the handwriting of Gurdip Singh accused and the writing Ex.PW2/A is typed copy which has been got typed partly at the instance of Mangal Sain and partly at the instance of Gurdip Singh Advocate and he identified the print of his type writer. He further deposed that he knew them since earlier as Gurdip Singh Advocate was working junior Advocate with Mr. V.K. Sareen, Advocate and Mangal Sain being Clerk, used to get his work typed from him. In order to prove the dispute between Nirmal Singh and Baljinder Singh on one side and Dalip Singh on the other side, Shingara Singh has stated that a civil suit was pending between Dalip Singh and Nirmal Singh etc. Shingara Singh has also proved the other facts stating that he along with Gurbax Singh had gone to the courts at Amritsar and met Mangal Sain Clerk and Gurdip Singh Advocate. He along with Gurbax Singh sat on one side and Gurdip Singh Advocate, Mangal Sain and Nirmal Singh sat on the other side. Gurdip Singh Advocate had disclosed that the order indicating vacation of the stay could be given to them on payment of a sum of Rs.1600/- for getting the copy of the order. Nirmal Singh after discussing for some time with Gurdip Singh had paid a sum of Rs.400/- as first instalment and then Gurdip Singh directed to come within 5-7 days with the remaining amount. Then again, they went to Amritsar and handed over Rs.1000/-. Gurdip Singh further stated that they should come after 4-5 days and pay the balance amount and then they paid the balance amount to Gurdip Singh and received the copy of the order. In order to complete the chain, Mr. S.D. Malooka (PW5), who was working as Executive Engineer, has stated that the order Mark-X/Ex.PW2/A was produced before him by Nirmal Singh and on the basis of which he shifted the connection. Gurbax Singh (PW3) has supported the testimony of Shingara Singh (PW6) and stated that both Gurdip Singh and Mangal Sain had promised to give them copy of the order indicating the vacation of stay on payment of Rs.1600/-. Consequently, Gurdip Singh was paid Rs.400/- on that very day, whereas, Rs.1000/- was paid on the next visit and Rs.200/- was paid on the day when the copy of the order was given to Nirmal Singh. Dalip Singh has also not left behind to prove the fraud as committed by the accused. He while Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2000 & Criminal Revision No.545 of 2004 -4- narrating the entire prosecution version has further stated that on the basis of the order Ex.PW2/A, Nirmal Singh got shifted the connection. It may further be observed that the accused when asked to give handwriting before the court on 21.11.1994, then he refused to give the same. Thus, the inference would be drawn that the accused Gurdip Singh had drafted the fictitious order Ex.PW2/A to the knowledge of Nirmal Singh at the instance of Mangal Sain (since deceased). Similarly, accused Nirmal Singh had mis- used the forged order, presenting the same before S.D. Malooka and got shifted the connection on the basis of the fictitious order. Thus, both the accused could certainly be held guilty for the offence for which they had been charged. The order was ultimately passed against the accused Nirmal Singh and Baljinder Singh on 20.10.1994, copy of which has been proved as Ex.PW7/A. The complainant Dalip Singh has also filed an affidavit Ex.PW7/B that no such order was passed by the court. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no offence under Section 467 IPC is made out as no document purporting to be a valuable security has been fabricated, I do not find any merit in the same. First of all, I, need to reproduce Section 467 IPC, which reads as under :- “Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.” On bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it transpires that it includes the movable property or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt for delivery of movable property. In the instant case Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2000 & Criminal Revision No.545 of 2004 -5- also, on the basis of the fictitious order Ex.PW2/A, electric connection i.e. movable property has been shifted. Similarly, Section 468 IPC deals with the forgery of the document intending to be used for the purpose of cheating. The document i.e. order Ex.PW2/A has been forged by the accused intending to be used for the purpose of cheating. Since this document was fabricated and the same was produced by Nirmal Singh for the purpose of shifting the electric connection and this document prepared by the accused Gurdip Singh and Nirmal Singh produced the same before the authorities knowing fully well that it was a forged one, therefore, the action of the accused persons is certainly covered by Section 468 IPC. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. No such illegality, irregularity much less perversity has been pointed out or detected warranting interference by this Court. As regards Baljinder Singh, his case is quite distinguishable as he has no where shown as a party who acted in connivance or in furtherance of common intention with Nirmal Singh. Be that it may, he may also be party to the suit but none of the witnesses have pointed out if he also played active role in procuring the forged order. As such, he deserves to be extended benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the revision petition No.545 of 2004 preferred by Gurdip Singh is dismissed. Revision petition No.1496 of 2000, preferred by Nirmal Singh etc. accused is partly accepted qua accused Baljinder Singh who is acquitted of the charges framed against him, whereas, petition qua Nirmal Singh is dismissed. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by accused Baljinder Singh stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by him, be refunded. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar for compliance. Mr. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. June 28, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge