P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) Accused-Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned judgment dated 10th of July, 2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), qua him, whereby the learned appellate Court has partly allowed his appeal to alter judgment dated 28th of July, 2016, passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (C.B.I. Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, upon conclusion of the trial, convicted petitioner for offence under Sections 420/120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and two others, viz., Jitendra Bansal and Gafoor, for offence under Section 420/120-B IPC.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner as well as Jitendra Bansal and Gafoor preferred three separate appeals before learned appellate Court. The learned appellate Court allowed appeals of Jitendra Bansal and Gafoor facilitating their acquittal for offence under Section 420/120-B IPC by extending benefit of doubt. The appeal filed by petitioner was also partly allowed by the learned appellate Court resulting in annulment of his conviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC while maintaining conviction for offence under Sections 420/120-B and 471 IPC. The learned appellate Court also maintained the sentences awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial Court qua these offences.
(3.) In brief, facts of the case are that on 13.04.2012, complainant, Jagdish Singh Panwar, submitted a criminal complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, alleging, inter-alia, that accused-persons Jitendra Bansal, Ramesh, Gafoor along with the present petitioner came to him on 20.03.2012 and introduced petitioner-Salim as property dealer. The accused persons also apprised the complainant that petitioner wants to sell Plot No.C-49, situated at Aradhana Nagar in Khasra No.379 of Village Pal, District Jodhpur. On inquiry, as per complainant, accused-petitioner showed him Power of Attorney, Sale-Agreement and Patta issued in the name of one Shanti Devi W/o Dhala Ram. Relying on their version and documents presented before him, complainant agreed to purchase said plot from petitioner for consideration amount of Rs.4,20,000/- and immediately paid the amount to him in presence of Ummed Singh and Dhirendra Singh. The complaint further unfurls that on 27.03.2017, he received a notice from petitioner informing him that the said Patta is forged and fabricated, and therefore, he (petitioner) is ready and willing to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which he had received as commission. After receipt of the said information, the complainant inquired about said Patta from JDA as well as Registry Office and came to know that no such Patta was ever issued or registered.;