CRR No.993 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.993 of 2000 Date of Decision: 24th August, 2009 Gurdev Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 26.4.2000 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Gurdev Singh accused against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 15.10.1998 rendered by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sangrur vide which he convicted the aforesaid accused under Section 182 of IPC and released him on probation. The facts in brief are that Gurdev Singh accused is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. He presented an application that the persons namely Gurmit Singh and others alongwith some other outsider have forcibly taken CRR No.993 of 2000 2 possession of the Shamlat Land belonging to the Panchayat. A case under Sections 447/188/506/148 read with Section 149 of IPC was registered against the said persons. During investigation, it was found that the disputed land was surplus of Balad Kalan and was allotted to Ajmer Singh and Bhagel Singh by Additional Director, Consolidation on 30.3.1983. Mutation was also sanctioned in their favour. An appeal was preferred against the said order, but the same was dismissed. An appeal was filed in the Hon’ble High Court and then to Hon’ble Supreme Court, which were also met failure. Warrants of possession were issued by the Assistant Collector and the allottees were put in possession during the execution of the said warrants. The case was cancelled. The accused Gurdev Singh was proceeded against under Section 182 of IPC. The notice was served upon him, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded false implication. He tendered Ex.D1 report of SHO dated 5.7.1995. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial court convicted the accused and released him on probation of good conduct as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the courts below, he has preferred this revision. CRR No.993 of 2000 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a public servant sanction under Section 197 of Cr.PC was required to prosecute him and in the absence of the same, the learned trial Magistrate was not justified in taking the cognizance. He further puts that even otherwise, the prosecution has not been launched by a competent person. This apart, the complaint was required to be lodged. In these premises, this petition is liable to be accepted. As against this, the learned State counsel maintained that the judgments recorded by both the courts below being well reasoned call for no interference. I have well considered the rival contentions. It is worth pointing out here that the scope of interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited. In re: Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana 1994(2) Recent Criminal Report 130 also relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, a false case was addressed to Deputy Commissioner and copy was endorsed to the Police. No direction was made by the Deputy Commissioner and investigation was taken by the SHO. The complaint was found to be false and it was held that SHO was competent to file Calendra under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code. It is also pertinent to point out here that the petitioner has admitted all incriminatory circumstances appearing against him in his statutory statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.. He had been perusing the matter upto the Apex Court. When the CRR No.993 of 2000 4 case was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he filed a false complaint. He had thus, knowledge of all the proceedings before this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 24th August, 2009 (HARBANS LAL) gsv JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No.