- (1.) THE present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.05.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
(2.) THE facts germane to the issue are; a complaint was filed by Jarmail Singh on 21.01.1999 disclosing that the Panchayat Elections were held in June, 1998. The complainant had filed his nomination papers to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch. However, Charan Singh accused who was the Ex -Sarpanch, recorded a resolution in the resolution book ante dating it, showing an auction of Panchayat land in the name of the complainant and forged his (complainant) signatures on the resolution. The plea of the complainant was that all the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and prepared a resolution so that the nomination papers of the complainant should be rejected. The complainant pleaded that he had never offered any bid nor he was in possession of any land and the resolution was entered only to deprive him of his right to contest the Elections. The trial Court recorded preliminary evidence and summoned the accused persons under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120 -B IPC. The complainant besides examining himself and his brother also examined a Handwriting Expert.
(3.) THE accused abjured the trial and pleaded not guilty. The trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint as it found that there were general and vague allegations against the accused that they had forged his signatures. It also found that the original resolution was never produced in the Court and the complainant had failed to prove that the resolution was in the handwriting of any of the accused. It had noted that the Handwriting Expert had only compared the signatures of the complainant. Dis -satisfied with the judgment, the complainant preferred an appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 24.05.2013 accepted the reasoning and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court as under: - "In the present case, the complainant had examined Vikram Raj Chauhan, Handwriting Expert and as far as his report is concerned, he has examined disputed signatures of Jarmail Singh on proceedings dated 04.04.1997 and compared with standard signatures of Jarmail Singh and had submitted a report that the disputed signatures alleged to be of Jarmail Singh on proceedings book dated 04.04.1997 do not tally with his standard signatures. Now, all that has been compared by this witness is the signatures of the complainant on the proceedings dated 04.04.1997 with his standard signatures. If, infact, the signatures of the complainant had been forged by the Ex -Sarpanch Charan Singh then best recourse available to the complainant was to get his handwriting compared as well with the signatures appearing on the proceedings dated 04.04.1997. It cannot be presumed on the mere asking of the complainant that the signatures were forged by Charan Singh. There is absolutely no evidence to prove the above fact that any of the accused had infact forged and fabricated the signatures of the complainant on the resolution dated 04.04.1997. As far as the resolution is concerned, even the same has not been duly proved on the file. As far as the statement of PW -4 Kashmir Singh Sandhu is concerned, he has merely brought the record regarding elections of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1998 and has stated that as per record Charan Singh had objected regarding nomination of Jarmail Singh but while stating that he has land on lease of the Gram Panchayat on which he is in possession. Infact, in his entire testimony he has not stated a word regarding the resolution dated 04.04.1997 and has further stated that even the nomination papers which is Ex.PW4/A do not bear the signatures of any officials who received it nor it bears any date or number of their office. He appeared as a witness at pre -charge stage and in post charge evidence this witness did not appear in the witness box. Now, the original record regarding the above resolution was never brought before the Court nor it was summoned, though the same could have been very well done by calling for record of the Panchayat proceedings from the Panchayat secretary concerned. In the absence of the original, it cannot be said that there was any such proceedings. Moreover, though the complainant had alleged that the said writing had been scribed by Kuldip Singh, Panchayat Secretary, yet he did not bother to get the same compared with the signatures of Kuldip Singh or handwriting of the said respondent.";