IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.35 of 2009 Date of decision : June 29, 2009 Rachna Devi and another …Petitioners. Versus Lila Devi and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents : None Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Nobody appears for the respondents, despite service. Record of the trial Court has been received. 2. On a complaint filed by respondent Lila Devi for offences, under Sections 465, 420, 467, 468, 471, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the present petitioners have been summoned as accused, under Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Allegations against the petitioners are that they had got executed in their name a sale deed, in respect of the property of one Subhash Chand, in the year 2000, though said Subhash Chand is to be presumed to be dead, under law, as he had not been heard of for more than seven years, in the year 2000, when the sale deed is purports to have been executed by him. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. Petitioners’ plea is that said Subhash Chand is very much alive and that in April, 2009, he has attested the execution of sale deed, as a witness, by the present petitioners, in favour of the complainant. Learned counsel has produced certified copy of sale deed, issued by Sub Registrar, Hamirpur, which is ordered to be taken on record. 5. In view of the abovestated position, impugned order dated 14th March, 2005, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Hamirpur, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 23rd January, 2009, is set aside. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hamirpur, is directed to afford an opportunity to complainant Lila Devi to produce some more evidence, in respect of her allegation that Subhash Chand was in fact dead, at the time, when the sale date purports to have been executed by him, in favour of the petitioners and that the sale deed is a forged document. Petition stands disposed of. June 29, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.