CRR No.1300 of 2009 (O&M) Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:074917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No.1300 of 2009 (O&M)

Date of Decision: May 22, 2023

Kamla and another

…Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:-

Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA

, J.(Oral)

The two petitioners were tried by the Court of learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat in case FIR No.417 dated

25.08.1997 registered at Police Station Israna, District Panipat and vide

judgment dated 15.04.2008, have been convicted under Sections 420, 467

and 468 IPC. Both of them were sentenced as under:-

Under Section

Sentence

Fine

Default Sentence

420 IPC

2 years RI

Rs. 1,000/-

SI for 2 months

467 IPC

3 years RI

Rs. 1,000/-

SI for 2 months

471 IPC

3 years RI

Rs. 1,000/-

SI for 2 months

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The fine was paid.

2.

Against the afore-said judgment of conviction and order of

sentence, the two petitioners filed appeal but the same has been dismissed

by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on

09.05.2009. Against this concurrent finding of conviction recorded by

the Courts below, the petitioners are now before this Court.

Page No.1 out of 7 pages

RENU

2023.05.26 19:00

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR No.1300 of 2009 (O&M) Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:074917

3.

The FIR was lodged on the basis of complaint made by

Chander Bhusan, the Special Power of Attorney holder of Nirmal Singh

Bhangu. It was alleged that in January, 1995, the two petitioners along

with Sultan told the complainant that both of them along with Nawab and

Mukesh were the owners of land measuring 04 kanals 17 marlas. It was

further claimed by them that petitioner – Kamla had a Special Power of

Attorney dated 16.12.1993 on behalf of her children Nawab and Mukesh.

On the basis of that Power of Attorney, petitioner – Kamla executed a

sale deed dated 02.02.1995 qua 04 kanals 17 marlas of land for a sale

consideration of Rs. 60,625/-. Nawab and Mukesh, later on filed civil

suit, challenging the sale deed on the ground that they were minors at the

time of execution of Power of Attorney in favour of Kamla as well as at

the time of execution of sale deed. It was alleged by the complainant that

this way, he had been cheated by the accused, who had forged the

documents.

4.

FIR was registered. During investigation, requisite

documents were collected. After completing the investigation, challan

was filed to prosecute the accused- petitioners under Section 420/120-B

IPC. However, the two petitioners were charge-sheeted by the Court to

face trial under Sections 420/467/471 IPC, to which they pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution evidence was taken on record.

Statements of the petitioners – accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were

recorded, in which they denied the allegations and pleaded false

implication. No evidence was adduced in defence. After hearing both the

sides, learned trial Court recorded conviction and sentenced the two

Page No.2 out of 7 pages

RENU

2023.05.26 19:00

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR No.1300 of 2009 (O&M) Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:074917

petitioners as per the details given earlier and the appeal filed by them

has been dismissed.

5.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that

both the Courts below failed to appreciate that no offence under Section

467 or 471 IPC was made out at all. Prosecution failed to prove that

Special Power of Attorney executed by Nawab and Mukesh in favour of

Kamla was a forged document. Said Power of Attorney was rather

proved by the prosecution as a genuine document by producing PW8

Ashok Kumar, Registration Clerk, Samalkha, where this attorne