R.P. Nagrath, J. - (1.) THE instant revision has been preferred to challenge the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner under Sections 120B/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by both the Courts below. The trial Court sentenced the petitioner as under: - All the sentences were to run concurrently. The sentence was affirmed by the Ist Appellate Court. As per custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already undergone about 8 months of imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution version is that complainant Palvir Singh S/o Shingara Singh was the owner of 12 kanals 9 marlas of land. He had a dispute regarding 8 kanals of the land with Balkar Singh who was residing in United States. Partition proceedings, however, were pending before the Revenue Court. The complainant reported to the police that on 30.5.2002, Balkar Singh aforesaid in connivance with Deepak Kumar got executed a sale deed of 4 kanal 12 marlas 232 sq. ft. of the land belonging to the complainant by impersonation. Sale deed was attested as a witness by the petitioner as Numberdar of the village. The complainant appeared as PW -3 and stated that the disputed sale deed Ex. PW -2/A was not executed by him and is a forged document. The complainant also stated that photograph existed on the sale deed is not his photograph. The Courts below have found that the testimony of complainant could not be shattered despite his cross -examination. Even the sale deed has been set aside by the Civil Court in a suit filed by the complainant. Ex. P -5 is the copy of judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar.
(3.) THE fact that the petitioner attested the vendor of the sale deed was not in fact disputed as observed by the Appellate Court. When the matter was listed on 22.4.2014, the learned petitioner's counsel did not challenge the conviction of the petitioner on merits and, therefore, notice of motion was issued only qua the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below could not have been interfered unless there is some perversity or illegality committed by the lower Courts.;