Crl.Misc.No.M-25907 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-25907 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23 - 3 - 2009 Parshotam Dass and others .....Petitioners v. Gandhi Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr.P.S.Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners. Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr.R.K.Chugh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.A.S.Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed in Court today. Same is taken on record. Present petition has been filed by six persons who claim themselves to worshipers of a Dera. On a complaint made by them, case FIR No.270 dated 10.12.1999 was registered at Police Station Dhuri under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B IPC. Respondent No.1 Gandhi Singh was placed in Column No.2. Admittedly, Gandhi Singh is attesting witness to three sale deeds. He is stated to be an Advocate and Crl.Misc.No.M-25907 of 2008 [2] Municipal Councilor. He has identified the beneficiaries of the sale deeds who are facing trial. Sale deeds bear the signatures of executant. The grievance of Mr.A.P.S. Deol, learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant is that the property vested in the Dera and executant Harchand Dass being Mohtmim of the Dera was not competent to execute the sale deeds. On observation made by the Court, that a marginal attesting witness to the document is not supposed to vouch-safe to the contents of the document, it has been stated that in three sale deeds executed, one sale deed bearing Vasika No.541, Harchand Dass has thumb marked the same and has been identified by Gandhi Singh. Vasika No.1128 bear the photograph of Harchand Dass and the thumb impressions named as Chand Singh. Therefore, it is stated that same man had executed three sale deeds representing him at one place as Harchand Dass and on the other as Chand Singh. It is not disputed that parentage of Harchand Dass on both the sale deeds is Sukhdev Chand or Sukhdev Singh. Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was declined by the trial Court vide Annexure P7. The trial Court declined the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. holding that there are oblique chances of conviction of Gandhi Singh who has been placed in column No.2. It also noticed that prosecution has adduced the evidence. This order passed by the trial Court vide Annexure P5 was made subject matter of revision by the complainant. Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide Annexure P6 remanded the matter to the trial Court. Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur was made subject matter of challenge by accused-respondent Gandhi Singh by preferring Criminal Misc.No.7684- M of 2008. This Court had remanded the matter to revisional court for re- Crl.Misc.No.M-25907 of 2008 [3] adjudication. Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition by holding as under:- “After going through the record this court finds that the challan in this case was presented as back as on 18.3.2002 and thereafter the evidence has been led by the prosecution. Statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C have also been recorded. Sale deeds in question have been proved by PW8 whose statement was recorded on 7.2.2006. These sale deeds were very well on the file but the applicants did not choose to move said application during the long pendency of 5 years. The other accused who are facing the trial are facing the trauma of trial for the last more than six years. The impugned order passed by the learned lower court is very much reasoned and detailed one. No doubt Gandhi Singh had identified three sale deeds executed by Harchand Dass when he showed himself on 2 sale deeds as Harchand Dass and one sale deed as Chand Singh but it is also on the file that the identification of the vendor is not in dispute. The M.Cs in usual practice attest such like documents....” This Court is conscious of three facts. In the present case (i) entire prosecution evidence has concluded; (ii) respondent No.1 is an Advocate and Municipal Councilor; and (iii) he is not a beneficiary of the property. He is only an attesting witness. The identification of the person who had executed the sale deeds has not been disputed. There is variation in the name that person has been named as Harchand Dass or Chand Singh. In view of the facts stated above, I find no reason to set aside Crl.Misc.No.M-25907 of 2008 [4] the order passed by two Courts below while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 23, 2009. JUDGE RC