Mr. Alok Singh, J.: (Oral) - Accused/revisionists are assailing judgment dated 17.10.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jalandhar, whereby appeal filed by the accused/revisionists (appellants therein) was dismissed upholding the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.8.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that Davinder Singh son of Malkit Singh Chadha and Mohinder Kaur wife of Pritam Singh filed a complaint with the police alleging that property No. EF-190 bearing khasra No.8073/3 measuring 7 marlas 81 sq. ft. situated at Old Railway Road, Jalandhar, was earlier owned by Joginder Kaur wife of Charan Singh and Smt. Amar Kaur wife of Sucha Singh; complainants have purchased the property in question from Joginder Kaur and Amar Kaur vide registered sale deed through their power of attorney. Accused No.1 to 6, as mentioned in the complaint, have started claiming themselves owner of the property on the basis of forged, fabricated and manufactured documents of power of attorney as well as sale deed; after investigation challan was submitted in the Court for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC against the accused/revisionist, however, no challan was submitted against Iqbal Singh and others saying that they are not found on the address given and are untraceable. Charges were framed and thereafter from the side of prosecution Amar Kaur as PW1, ASI Rajinder Nath as PW2, SI Amrik Singh as PW3, Resham Singh as PW4, Paramjit Singh as PW5, Joga Singh, Clerk of D.C. Office, Jalandhar, as PW6, Bachan Singh son of Sher Singh as PW7 and Taranjit Singh son of Jaswant Singh as PW8 were examined. All the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case stating that complainants are the owners in possession of the property and they have purchased the property from the then owners Joginder Kaur and Amar Kaur. It has come in the evidence that Iqbal Singh has executed power of attorney in favour of Malak Singh accused/revisionist No.1 saying original owners i.e. Joginder Kaur and Amar Kaur had executed ‘Wills’ dated 13.5.1979 in his favour, therefore, he is the owner of the property and thereafter Malak Singh accused has executed sale deed in favour of his own son i.e. another accused Satnam Singh, revisionist No.2. Learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court have found both the accused/revisionists guilty for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each for an offence under Section 467 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Section 471 IPC. Both of them were also awarded sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each for an offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and have carefully examined the material made available by learned counsel for the revisionists.

4. Learned senior counsel for the accused/revisionists, while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751, has vehemently argued that even if entire prosecution story is taken as correct even then complainants have