- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against judgment dated 8.1.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby his appeal against judgment of conviction dated 26.5.2010 and order of sentence dated 28.5.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that a complaint was made to the police by complainant Hansraj mentioning therein that on 9.4.1998, petitioner Rajender Singh along with Dr. Umesh came to him and talked about the sale of plot No.56. Dr. Umesh stated that the said plot was measuring 150 sq. yards and the same could be sold for Rs.2 lacs. When the complainant asked about the papers of said plot, Dr. Umesh brought photocopy of an agreement, purportedly executed by one Shanta Kumari in the name of Nanak Chand as per which the sale deed was to be executed within 15 days. The complainant expressed his inability to purchase the plot within that short duration. Later on, the deal was finalised for Rs.1.87 lacs and an agreement to sell regarding the said plot was executed on 9.6.1998 between the complainant and Nanak Chand. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to accused Nanak Chand and the date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 25.6.1998. However, on 24.6.1998 at about 10.00 a.m. accused Rajender Singh, Nanak Chand and two other boys came to the complainant and told that they had booked a hotel in Delhi from where sale deed and Rs.50,000/- were gone missing. Rajender Singh told the complainant that he will get copy of said sale deed and execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. On 25.6.1998, accused Nanak Chand got copy of the sale deed and took the complainant to Delhi where they prepared receipt of Rs.1.87 lacs and got affixed photograph of Shanta Kumari on general power of attorney. After 10 days, some other persons approached the complainant and claimed the said plot to be their own and disclosed that Shanta Kumari has not executed any sale deed. On inquiry, the complainant came to know that accused Rajender Singh, Nanak Chand and Bittoo had conspired with each other, got prepared forged sale deed from the court and also got prepared a false agreement to cheat the complainant.
(3.) On these allegations, FIR No.240 dated 25.6.1998 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC was registered against the petitioner and three other co-accused, namely, Umesh, Parmod and Nanak Chand at Police Station Mujessar, District Faridabad. Investigation was conducted. Report under Section 173 Cr.PC was prepared and presented in the Court. Copies of the report was supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.PC. However, during the trial, accused Nanak Chand failed to appear before the trial Court and was consequently, declared as proclaimed offender vide order dated 12.2.2000 passed by the trial Court. On finding a prima-facie case against the petitioner and other co-accused, charge under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC was framed against them to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.;