LAKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Lakha Singh son of Manna Singh, Wassan Singh and Ram Singh sons of Lakha Singh against the judgment and order dated 5.10.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners along with one Sardul Singh son of Bahadur Singh against the order of conviction dated 4.12.1987 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran has been dismissed.

(2.) VIR Singh son of Jawahar Singh owned agricultural land in the revenue estate of village Bhail Dhaiwal. Said Vir Singh executed a gift deed dated 7.6.1955 whereby he gifted his land in equal shares to his daughters Mst. Jowali and Mst. Achhro. After the demise of Mst. Jowali and Mst. Achhro, the land was mutated in the name of their sons and daughters. Lakha Singh- complainant (PW-1) and Mukha Singh (PW-5) are the sons of Mst. Achhro. Mohinder Kaur (PW-12) and Giano (PW-6) are the daughters of Mst. Achhro. lakha Singh son of Manna Singh petitioner is the son of Mst. Jowali. It is alleged that the petitioners entered into a conspiracy and in pursuance thereof a sale-deed dated 26.8.1980 in respect of the aforesaid land belonging to the sons and daughters of Mst. Achhro was fabricated for a sum of Rs. 33,000/-. The same was got registered by impersonating the owners before the Sub Registrar. Sardul Singh (accused/non-petitioner) was the attesting witness of the said sale-deed. The accused, who impersonated the owners were identified by Bachan Singh Lambardar of Village Khela, who has since died. When the fact of impersonation came to the notice of Lakha Singh-complainant son of Mst. Achhro, he approached the accused and requested them to have the said sale-deed cancelled. However, the accused failed to pay any heed to the requests made by the complainant. Lakha Singh complainant then filed a criminal complaint. Lakha Singh complainant then filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, who forwarded the same to the police of Police Station City Tarn Taran. On the basis of the same, formal FIR was registered against the petitioners and Sardul Singh (non-petitioner) in respect of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). After completion of the investigation, police report (challan) in terms of Sections 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.,for short) was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran. The petitioners and Sardul Singh (non-petitioner) were charged for having committed the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence and material on record found that the prosecution has established the guilt of the petitioners for having committed an offence punishable under Section 467 IPC inasmuch as the accused had fabricated the sale-deed, which was a valuable security. Accordingly, the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 467 IPC. However, the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 IPC were held to have not been made out against them. For the offence under Section 467 IPC, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a find of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the convicts were to undergo further imprisonment of six months each. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in terms of order dated 5.10.1989, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and Sardul Singh (non-petitioner). The said order dated 5.10.1989, as already noticed, is assailed in this revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that before filing of the complaint by Lakha Singh-complainant on 4.5.1981, Lakha Singh and Mukha Singh sons of Arjan Singh and Mst. Achhro as also Smt. Giano and Mohinder Kaur dauohters of Arjan Singh and Mst. Achhro had filed a suit for possession against the petitioners and Sradul Singh (non-petitioner). It is contended that the sale-deed dated 26.8.1980, which is in dispute in the present case, was set up by the defendants in the suit, who are the present petitioners. In terms of the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1985, passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Tarn Taran, the sale-deed dated 26.8.1980 was not held to be proved in favour of the petitioners Wassan Singh and Ram Singh. The same was held to be false and the property in dispute measuring 26 kanal 8 marlas situated in Village Bhail Dhaiwala was held to be in possession of the plaintiffs, who are the sons and daughters respectively of Mst. Achhro. Against the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1985, an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Amritsar which was dismissed. Thereafter, RSA No. 3411 of 1986 was filed in this Court in which it is contended that the matter was compromised and the terms of the compromise were reduced into writing and were placed on record on 13.8.1999. In terms of the compromise, the said Regular Second Appeal No. 3411 of 1986 was disposed of. The suit of Lakha Singh, Mukha Singh, Smt. Giano and Smt. Mohindro sons and daughters of Smt. Achhro and Arjan Singh was dismissed and appeal of the appellants was disposed of in terms of the compromise, which was directed to form part of the decree. In view of the said compromise and the order of this Court dated 13.8.1999 passed in RSA No. 3411 of 1986, it is contended that the matter having been compromised, the revision petition is liable to be accepted. Besides, the report of the hand writing expert is not shown to have been proved in accordance with law and a conviction is not liable to be recorded on the basis of a report which has not been proved. It is also contended that the sale- deed dated 26.8.1980 was in any the subject matter of the aforementioned civil suit and therefore, the criminal complainant in respect of the same filed by Lakha Singh-complainant on 4.5.1981 was barred in view of the provisions of Section 195(i)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is contended that the finding of guilt recorded in respect of the offence under Section 467 IPC is liable to be set aside.