- (1.) Petitioner along with co-accused had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 419,120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). The trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 7.8.2009 convicted and sentenced the accused qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 419 read with Section 120-B IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment/order of conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal. His other co-accused preferred a separate appeal. Vide judgment dated 25.7.2012, the appeals were dismissed by the appellate Court with the modification that the sentence qua imprisonment of the accused, as ordered by the trial Court, was reduced from 2 years to 1 1/2. year. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. In fact, there was no evidence on record against the petitioner qua his involvement in the alleged crime.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. So far as petitioner is concerned, PW-8 Prabhu Dyal, typist, deposed that on 26.6.2000, petitioner had approached him for preparation of loan case and had given a copy of jamabandi (Ex.PB), which was in the name of Sukhdev Singh, to him. At that time Sukhdev Singh was not present with the petitioner. At the instance of the petitioner, he had prepared affidavit (Ex. PL) of Sukhdev Singh. He had also typed non-encumbrance certificate ( Ex.PK). On the basis of the copy of jamabandi supplied by the petitioner, he had written the khasra numbers etc. in the non-encumbrance certificate. Petitioner had paid him Rs. 100/- for preparing the non-encumbrance certificate. The said witness duly identified the petitioner in the Court. The land in question was, in fact, owned and possessed by the gram panchayat, Sher Singh and Surinder Singh. However, forged copy of the jamabandi in the name of Sukhdev Singh was produced by the petitioner before PW-8 Prabhu Dayal for preparation of non-encumbrance certificate and affidavit of Sukhdev Singh. On the basis of the said documents, Sukhdev Singh got loan from the bank. In these circumstances, both the Courts below had rightly held that the petitioner was liable to be convicted and sentenced qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 419 read with Section 120-B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.;