MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) IN Criminal Case No. 187 of 2000, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur (for brevity, the trial court), arising out of FIR No. 80 of 21.07.1999, recorded at Police Station, Kalanaur under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC), prosecution made an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Code) for summoning Lakhbir Singh (wrongly written as Lakhwinder Singh), Jasbir Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Bhupinder Singh sons of Darshan Singh, and Sukhwinder Singh and Baljinder Singh sons of Tarlok Singh as additional accused on the averments that witnesses examined by the prosecution had pointed towards their culpability in the commission of the offence. The application, after contest, was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 12.09.2006 by observing as under: "A perusal of record shows that the complainant has also filed previous application on 8.1.2001 u/s 190 Cr.P.C. for summoning accused as additional accused and the same was dismissed and complainant filed revision. The same was also dismissed. Then the complainant filed application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. The same was also dismissed and no revision was filed by the complainant. As such, I find no ground to summon the above -mentioned accused as additional accused because the two applications filed by the complainant have already been dismissed. Therefore, I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed." Prosecution assailed order dated 12.09.2006 by way of a criminal revision (registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 28.11.2008) and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur (for short, 'revisional court ') accepted the revision petition, after contest, vide order dated 25.05.2012 by holding as under: "In the revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the revisional court has to see the correctness, legality, propriety, and validity of the order under revision. Perusal of the summoned record shows that an application was filed by Harbhajan Singh to Sub Registrar, Kalanaur for registration of case against Lakhbir Singh, Jasbir Bakhshish Singh and Bhupinder Singh sons of Darshan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh and Baljinder Singh sons of Tarlok Singh as Darshan Singh and Tarlok Singh purchased land in the name of their sons, who are major, namely Lakhbir Singh, Jasbir Bakhshish Singh and Bhupinder Singh through Darshan Singh and in the name of Sukhwinder Singh and Baljinder Singh through Tarlok Singh. They are real beneficiaries of the sale deeds. PW1, Complainant Harbhajan Singh in his complaint to the tehsildar has specifically named the above -said persons against whom FIR has been registered. Harbhajan Singh has also specifically deposed when appeared In the court as PW1 that Lakhbir Singh, Jasbir Bakhshish Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Baljinder Singh hatched the conspiracy with Darshan Singh, Tarlok Singh, Dalbir Singh and Bachan Singh. He has been crossexamined at length. The enquiry report has been proved by PW5 Arvind Salwan who has also proved that from the enquiry he found that sale deeds were executed by hatching conspiracy with each other. The persons sought to be summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. are the real beneficiary of the sale deeds. Moreover, they are the sons of Darshan Singh and Tarlok Singh, who signed on the sale deeds on their behalf. Six witnesses have been examined in this case. In the case titled Michael Machado and Anr. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., 2002 (3) RCR(Criminal) page 75, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the court has to be satisfied from the evidence already collected that there is reasonable prospect of convicting them of the offence. In the light of the evidence on file in the shape of the complaint filed by the complainant, statement of PW1 to PW6, it revelas that the persons sought to be summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. are beneficiary of the sale deeds, which have been signed by their father. It is settled proposition of law that there is no direct evidence of conspiracy as the persons facing trial and the persons siought to be summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. are family members. Hence, it is presumed that they are aware about the sale deeds. From the evidence on the file and in view of the law laid down in Michael Machado and Anr. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.(supra), Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh and Anr. Versus State of Jharkhand, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) page 505 and Sarabjit Singh and Anr. Versus State of Punjab and Anr., 2009(3) RCR(Criminal) page 389, I am satisfied that the evidence on record is such which would reasonable led to conviction of the persons sought to be summoned and there is reasonable prospect of convicting them of the offence." Petitioners, who have been ordered to be summoned as additional accused vide order dated 25.05.2012 of the revisional court, are not happy with the order and to seek upsetting thereof, have invoked provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code by way this revision petition.
(2.) RESPONDENTS , viz. the State and the complainant, are contesting the petition. Besides perusing the file, including the impugned order, I have also heard learned counsel for the parties, namely Shri K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Deep Dingh, Assistant Advocate General for State of Punjab and Shri Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2, the complainant.
(3.) IT is strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioners that the material available on record, even if allowed to go unrebutted, is not sufficient to record a finding of conviction against the petitioners in so far as there is only a casual reference to the petitioners as conspirators in the commission of the stated crime whereas the fact remains that they are not signatories to the disputed sale deeds and there is no evidence even to prove their presence at the time of, nor are they shown to have participated in, the execution of the sale deeds in question. According to Shri Dhaliwal, only because the petitioners are beneficiaries under the sale deeds in question, they cannot be said to be party to the conspiracy, if any. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Ram Singh and Ors. Vs. Ram Niwas and Anr., JT 2009(8) SC 219: 2009(8) SCALE 284:(2009)14 SCC 25: [2009]8 SCR 878, Salam versus State of Haryana, 2011(2) RCR(Criminal) 441 and Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah etc. versus State of Gujarat and Anr., 2012 CriLJ 430: JT 2011(14) SC 82:2011(3) RCR(Criminal) 852:2011(8) SCALE 542: (2011)13 SCC 316: [2011]9 SCR 1138. Per Contra, on behalf of the respondents, with reference to deposition of PW1, Harbhajan Singh and PW5, Arvind Salwan, it has been argued, with no less vehemence, that PW1, Harbhajan Singh has specifically stated on oath that the petitioners have hatched a conspiracy to get the disputed sale deeds executed in their favour by playing a fraud and impersonation, and PW5, Arvind Salwan has proved on record report of enquiry to support what PW1, Harbhajan Singh has said. Reference has also been made to copy of judgment and decree dated 02.12.2003 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur in Civil Suit No. 138 of 2002, Harbhajan Singh versus Lakhbir Singh etc. whereby civil court has declared the sale deeds in question to be fraudulent. On behalf of the respondents reliance has also been placed upon Moti Lal Songara versus Prem Praksh @ Pappu and Anr., AIR 2013 SC 2078: 2013 CriLJ 2977: JT2013(7) SC 376: 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 333: 2013(7) SCALE 320: (2013)9 SCC 199, Dharam Pal and Ors. Versus State of Haryana and Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3018: 2013 CriLJ 3900: JT2013(10) SC 572:(2013)172 PLR 230: 2013(3) RCR(Criminal) 787: 2013 (9) SCALE 207 and Uma Shankar Singh versus State of Bihar and Anr., JT2010(9) SC 512: (2010)9 SCC 479: [2010]10 SCR 1132.;