JAGDISH PARSHAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. These petitions arise out of the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat sentencing both the petitioners. The petitioners herein were convicted for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 120B I.P.C.

(2.) AN appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, who by his order merely disposed of the appeals with a cryptic order holding that one Om Parkash, Numberdar never existed. In fact, the learned appellate Court holds that this Om Parkash, Numberdar was not in existence and, therefore, the mutation which has been attested (Ext.PW6/B) is the outcome of conspiracy and fraud by the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Dutt and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. : (2009) 15 SCC 429 and Gian Parkash v. State of Haryana,, 2008(4) Cri.CC 92 (P&H) to urge that even if the acts as imputed to the appellants are proved, no criminal offence has been established on the record. I am not entering into this controversy nor am I pronouncing on the applicability of the judgment to the facts of this case. What I hold is that the learned appellate Court, after considering only the existence of Om Parkash as a Numberdar, has disposed of both these petitions.