Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Gurmail Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Ors. - Respondent
CRR-822-2015
Decided On : 28-05-2015
Mutation - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 420/466/467/468/471/120-B - The court discussed the limitations of revisional jurisdiction, the duties of the courts in evaluating evidence, and the protection of public servants under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The court found that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not proved against the respondent, and there was no evidence of conspiracy. The court also held that the respondent, being a public servant, was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code. The court concluded that there was no manifest error of law in the conclusions or in analyzing the evidence by the appellate court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the sale of land and the subsequent fraudulent mutation of land records. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, but the appellate court acquitted the respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the State through the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not proved against the respondent, and there was no evidence of conspiracy. The court also held that the respondent, being a public servant, was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code. The court concluded that there was no manifest error of law in the conclusions or in analyzing the evidence by the appellate court.
Issues: The issues involved the conviction and acquittal of the accused, the limitations of revisional jurisdiction, the duties of the courts in evaluating evidence, and the protection of public servants under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limitations of revisional jurisdiction, the duties of the courts in evaluating evidence, and the protection of public servants under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The court found that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not proved against the respondent, and there was no evidence of conspiracy. The court also held that the respondent, being a public servant, was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision by the complainant against the judgment of the appellate court acquitting the respondent.
1. Instant revision has been preferred by petitioner-complainant (Gurmail Singh) challenging the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby his appeal seeking enhancement of sentence of accused has been dismissed and appeal filed by respondent No. 2-Rajiv Verma has been allowed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2014 passed by the trial Court have been set aside and he has been acquitted of the charges framed against him.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined complainant-Gurmail Singh as PW 1, Inspector Jaswant Singh as PW 2, ASI Surinder Singh as PW 3, Dheera Singh, Patwari as PW 4, Gagandeep Singh, Senior Assistant Director of Land Records, Punjab as PW 5, Smt. Sarojini Gautam Sharda, Deputy Excise and
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
