The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration and admissibility of evidence, as well as the interpretation of the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

S.S. Saron, J. - This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Lakha Singh son of Manna Singh, Wassan Singh and Ram Singh sons of Lakha Singh against the judgment and order dated 5.10.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners along with one Sardul Singh son of Bahadur Singh against the order of conviction dated 4.12.1987 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran has been dismissed.

2. Vir Singh son of Jawahar Singh owned agricultural land in the revenue estate of village Bhail Dhaiwal. Said Vir Singh executed a gift deed dated 7.6.1955 whereby he gifted his land in equal shares to his daughters Mst. Jowali and Mst. Achhro. After the demise of Mst. Jowali and Mst. Achhro, the land was mutated in the name of their sons and daughters. Lakha Singh- complainant (PW-1) and Mukha Singh (PW-5) are the sons of Mst. Achhro. Mohinder Kaur (PW-12) and Giano (PW-6) are the daughters of Mst. Achhro. lakha Singh son of Manna Singh petitioner is the son of Mst. Jowali. It is alleged that the petitioners entered into a conspiracy and in pursuance thereof a sale-deed dated 26.8.1980 in respect of the aforesaid land belonging to the sons and daughters of Mst. Achhro was fabricated for a sum of Rs. 33,000/-. The same was got registered by impersonating the owners before the Sub Registrar. Sardul Singh (accused/non-petitioner) was the attesting witness of the said sale-deed. The accused, who impersonated the owners were identified by Bachan Singh Lambardar of Village Khela, who has since died. When the fact of impersonation came to the notice of Lakha Singh-complainant son of Mst. Achhro, he approached the accused and requested them to have the said sale-deed cancelled. However, the accused failed to pay any heed to the requests made by the complainant. Lakha Singh complainant then filed a criminal complaint. Lakha Singh complainant then filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, who forwarded the same to the police of Police Station City Tarn Taran. On the basis of the same, formal FIR was registered against the petitioners and Sardul Singh (non-petitioner) in respect of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code, for short). After completion of the investigation, police report (challan) in terms of Sections 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Criminal Procedure Code,for short) was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran. The petitioners and Sardul Singh (non-petitioner) were charged for having committed the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence and material on record found that the prosecution has established the guilt of the petitioners for having committed an offence punishable under Section 467 Indian Penal Code inasmuch as the accused had fabricated the sale-deed, which was a valuable security. Accordingly, the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 467 Indian Penal Code. However, the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 Indian Penal Code were held to have not been made out against them. For the offence under Section 467 Indian Penal Code, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a find of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the convicts were to undergo further imprisonment of six months each. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in terms of order dated 5.10.1989, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and Sardul Singh (non-petitioner). The said order dated 5.10.1989, as already noticed, is assailed in this revision petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. I.S. Gehlot, A.A.G., Punjab.

4. Lea