JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

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.

4. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint for investigation to Police Station Pratap Nagar by resorting to sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. and thereupon FIR bearing No. 219/12 against accused persons was registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. Upon completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against petitioner Salim and other co-accused, viz. Gafoor, Jitendra Bansal and Shivshankar, for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and against Praveen Ram Deo for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120B IPC. The learned trial Court then proceeded to take cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the accused persons. Subsequently, charges were framed against petitioner and other accused persons for the offences and on their denial, they were put on trial.

5. In order to prove charge against accused persons, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents.

6. Subsequently, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court, then, proceeded to hear final arguments and after appreciation of evidence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document