The main legal point established is the requirement to produce the original document or prove its existence and destruction to establish forgery, and the lack of legal action taken as indicative of no profit sharing agreement and no case of cheating.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 16.05.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby the judgment of acquittal dated 13.08.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala has been affirmed.

2. Briefly put, the case of prosecution is that as per allegations of the complainant Karnail Singh, Jagtar Singh was serving with Punjab State Electricity Board. The family of Jagtar Singh owned a small chunk of land, out of which 02 kanals of land fell to the share of Jagtar Singh. Jagtar Singh showed the land to the complainant at Ropar Road, Machhiwara and told him that the deal of the land would be struck for Rs.01,00,00,000/- approximately. The complainant agreed to purchase the land with Jagtar Singh jointly. The bargain was struck for land measuring 1K-1M. Jagtar Singh assured that they would have have equal share of the profit after sale of the land after converting it into plots. The owner of the land was Dev Raj, who had given power of attorney in favour of his son Narinder Pal. On 13.06.2005, the agreement was got scribed by Jagtar Singh in the name of his brother Bhag Singh by showing the complainant as a witness. The complainant was not present at that time, but his signatures were appended either by Jagtar Sigh or by his associates. Later on, it transpired that Jagtar Singh had paid Rs.12,00,000/- towards the agreement of sale whereas, the complainant had paid Rs.15,00,000/- to him. Since, the information of entering into the agreement showing the sale consideration as Rs.01,00,00,000/- became known to the Sub-Registrar, the sale deed could not be executed since it required affixation of more stamp fee. At the asking of Jagtar Singh, they got scribed a gift deed in favour of the nephew of Dev Raj. 10 plots were sold by Jagtar Singh and the sale consideration was kept by him. The amount of Rs.15,00,000/- paid by the complainant was returned by Jagtar Singh in installments. But thereafter, neither were the plots given nor were accounts settled with the complainant. Jagtar Singh sold the remaining two plots for Rs.28,00,000/-. It was alleged that Rs.37,48,000/- came to the share of the complainant out of the profit of Rs.74,96,000/- and it had not been paid by Jagtar Singh to him. The matter was compromised at the police station, but as per the promise, Jagtar Singh did not make the payment. Investigation was carried out. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and presented in the court against the accused.

3. On consideration of the challan and documents attached therewith, sufficient grounds were found to presume that the accused had committed the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and accordingly, charge under the above said sections was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Consequently, the prosecution was called upon to produce its evidence in the case. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Karnail Singh complainant, PW-2 Bakshish Singh, PW-2 Rajanjit Singh, PW-4 HC Sanjeev Kumar, PW-5 ASI Harbans Singh, PW-6 Dr. Jassy Anand-Document Expert, PW-7 Inspector Bhupinder Singh, PW-8 Inspector Coma Singh, PW-9 Ashish Jain and PW-10 Dr. Seema Sharda.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C in which all incriminating pieces of evidence were put to the accused, who denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded that they were innocent.

6. In defence evidence, the accused examined Narinder Maine as DW-1 and Dr.Inderjit Singh as DW-2.

7. After hearing arguments of the APP and the defence counsel, the trial Court vide the impugned judgment, acquitted the accused/respondents from the charges framed against them vide judgment dated 13.08.2014.

8. The complainant preferred an appeal before the c