Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 904
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Pardhuman Singh and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRR-68-2015 and CRR-455-2015 (O & M)
Decided On : 28-05-2015
For the Appellant :G.S. Nagra, Advocate
For the Respondents:S.S. Chandumajra, DAG assisted by A.S. Gill, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused committed forgery by making a false document and using it as genuine, satisfying the essential ingredients of Sections 467 and 471 IPC.
Headnote:
Forgery - Land Dispute - Sections 463, 464, 467, 470, 471 IPC - The court upheld the conviction of the accused for making a false document by altering a sale deed, leading to the entry of a mutation. The court found that the accused committed forgery and used the forged document as genuine, thereby satisfying the essential ingredients of Sections 467 and 471 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a land dispute where the accused altered a sale deed by adding more khasra numbers, leading to the entry of a mutation. The trial court convicted the accused, and the appellate court upheld the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused committed forgery by making a false document and used it as genuine, satisfying the essential ingredients of Sections 467 and 471 IPC. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the revisions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alteration of the sale deed, entry of a mutation, and the commission of forgery under Sections 467 and 471 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused made a false document by altering the sale deed and used it as genuine, satisfying the essential ingredients of Sections 467 and 471 IPC. The court also emphasized the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction in criminal revision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisions, upheld the conviction of the accused, and directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
1. This order shall dispose of CRR-68-2015, titled 'Pardhuman Singh v. State of Punjab' and CRR-455-2015, titled 'Hussan Lal v. State of Punjab', as common questions of fact, law are involved in both the revisions and both arise from the same FIR.
2. These revisions have been preferred by petitioners-Pardhuman Singh and Hussan Lal, respectively, against judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby appeals filed by the above named petitioners have been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar have been upheld whereby each of them has been sentenced as under:
3. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
4. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that one Kulwinder Singh son of Parsoon Singh, general attorney (vide registered attorney No. 9092/4 dated 11.2.1999) of Jagdish Kaur, sold 2 kanals 8 marlas of land to Gurmail Singh son of Kartar Singh pertaining to khasra numbers 37/2 (2-0), 20(6-9), 21(3-2), 18/2(2-15), 19/2(2-2), 22/1(0-18), 314(8-0), 315(8-0), 316(8-0), 330(8-0), 331(8-0), 332(8-0), 668(8-0), 669(8-0), 672(8-00, 673(8-0), 676(7-8), 968/1(4-9), 965/1(4-9), 964/2(1-10), from the total land measuring 115 kanals 2 marlas vide registered sale deed dated 18.2.1999 and the mutation No. 1381 was sanctioned in favour of Gurmail Singh on 24.2.1999. Gurmail Singh got physical possession on the same day (i.e. the date of registration of sale deed) in the presence of Sagar Singh son of Piara Singh. Thereafter, another sale deed was executed by Jagdish Kaur wife of Sagar Singh in favour of Hussan Lal son of Pritam Dass, resident of village Kot Khurd, Tehsil and District Jalandhar on 31.3.1999 and that sale deed was executed for 10 marlas of land, out of khasra number 18/2(2-15) and 19/2(2-2) shown in jamabandi for the year 1993-94. Thereafter, Hussan Lal in connivance and in criminal conspiracy with Parduman Singh Patwari of village Kot Khurd and Satwinderjit Pal, concerned Kanungo and other accomplices, made additions of some more khasra numbers in addition to khasra number 18/2 and 19/2 in the original sale deed in his possession for the purpose of entering the mutation in the revenue record, whereas in the copy of sale deed, which was in the custody of Registrar, Registration, Jalandhar, only two khasra numbers i.e. 18/2 and 19/2 were written. Thereafter, the sale deed was put up before the Patwari Pardhuman Singh for sanctioning of mutation and he made entries in the revenue record for sanctioning of mutation in favour of Hussan Lal mentioning additional khasra numbers of the joint land as stated above. Accordingly, mutation No. 1386 was sanctioned in favour of Hussan Lal on 27.04.1999. Thereafter, when this discrepancy was pointed out by the complainant, the accused in order to save their skin and to justify their actions connived to amend the sale deed by adding above said additional khsara numbers in the sale deed vide amended sale deed i.e. Tatima registry dated 13.07.1999. The complainant Gurmail Singh after getting a certified copy of sale deed dated 31.03.1999 moved application before the Deputy Commissioner, upon which an inquiry was got conducted through Smt. Sarojini Gautam Sharda, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jalandhar, who recommended action against Jagdish Kaur, Hussan Lal, Patwari Pardhuman Singh, Girdawar Kanungo Satinderjit Pal and Circle Revenue Office Rajiv Verma for conniving with each other for sanctioning the mutation with added khasra numbers. On the basis of said report, FIR was registered.
5. Vide order dated 02.04.2003, Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges under Sections420/467/468/471/466 of the Indian Penal Code ('in short, 'IPC'). After the summoning of additional accused, charge was re-framed/amended, vide order dated 24.02.2014, under Sections420/466/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
6. In order to prove its case, the pros
