The court considered the position of the executant of the document and the time elapsed since its issuance to determine the validity of the document and whether it could be considered forged.

1. - The instant two miscellaneous petitions have been preferred by the petitioner complainant challenging the order dated 17.5.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in revision whereby the Revisional Court quashed the order dated 21.8.1998 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Ratangarh in Cr. Original Case No. 428/94 and discharged the respondents Pema Ram (Misc. Petition No. 1043/2011) and Banshidhar (Misc. Petition No. 1287/2011).

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the respondents Pema Ram and prepared a forged Patta and issued it in the name of Banshidhar. He submits that the F.S.L. report has been received in this case, as per which the handwriting on the Patta is reported to be in different handwritings by different inks. Learned counsel submits that the Patta was challenged in revenue proceedings and ultimately on remand being made by this Court in a writ petition, the matter is subjudice before the Collector for examining the validity of Patta. He thus submits that the Revisional Court has committed a grave error in discharging the respondents.

3. Per contra Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondent Pema Ram and Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent Banshidhar submit that the I.O. has gathered evidence to the effect that the Patta was entered in the Patta Register. They submit that the signatures on the Patta are not disputed because admittedly Pema Ram was Sarpanch when the Patta was issued. They further submit that the original Patta was not recovered in this case, and therefore, the F.S.L. report looses its significance. They submit that the Patta was issued way back in the year 1963 and now almost 50 years have passed since then, therefore, it would be absolutely harsh and unreasonable in directing trial of the accused in this case.

4. Learned P.P. has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Rajpurohit.

5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the record. The most material fact which can be gathered from the record is that the original Patta has not been recovered by the I.O. in this case. Therefore, the F.S.L. report which has been much stressed upon by Mr. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioner would not be of much significance. It is not in dispute that the Patta was issued way back in the year 1963 and the F.I.R. has been filed in the year 1992. The validity of the Patta is still under consideration before the District Collector. It is also not in dispute that the Patta is entered in the Patta register of the Panchayat whether or not Patta was validly issued is a question to be examined by the District Collector. However, in the opinion of this Court since the executant of the Patta is Pema Ram who was admittedly Sarpanch of the village at the relevant time, therefore, the document cannot be said to be a forged document. Thus, even if the matter was to be tried by the learned trial court it would be an exercise in futility. Even if for the sake of arguments, the contention of the petitioner's counsel is accepted then too, considering the fact that the Patta was issued almost fifty years ago and the F.I.R. was filed in the year 1992, it would be a traversity of justice if the accused are sent to trial now. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the Revisional Court has committed no error in discharging the respondents Pema Ram and Banshidhar.Accordingly, the miscellaneous petitions are bereft of any force and the same are hereby rejected. Record be sent back.Petition dismissed.

*******