IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

307 CRR-1682-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 16.02.2026 MALKIAT KAUR ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision is filed against the judgment dated 16.11.2018 passed by learned JMIC, Mansa, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioners, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.2018, passed by learned JMIC, Mansa and the judgment dated 26.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby the order of learned JMIC, Mansa was upheld and the appeal has been dismissed, in complaint under Sections 193, 196, 467, 468, 471, 420/511 of IPC read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Brief background of the case is that the applicants, Amarjit Kaur and Gurnam Singh, moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

GURPREET seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Jit Singh and his wife Malkiat Kaur on allegations of perjury, fabrication of false evidence, and fraud upon the Court. It is averred that in Civil Suit No. 35 dated 02.09.2000 titled Jit Singh vs. Amarjit Kaur & Ors., decided on 12.11.2003 by the Court of the then Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Mansa, Jit Singh had specifically pleaded that Nek Singh @ Tek Singh @ Ranjit Singh was his real brother, one among six brothers, and had further stated that the said brother was unmarried, issueless, and missing for 40–45 years. Similar averments were made in a subsequent civil suit for possession and in partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Tehsildar, Budhlada.

The applicants submit that Nek Singh had executed a General Power of Attorney No. 113 dated 14.06.1989 in favour of Babu Singh, pursuant to which registered sale deeds dated 20.06.1989 were executed in favour of the applicants, who have since remained in possession as lawful owners.

It is alleged that despite earlier judicial admissions acknowledging Nek Singh as a distinct person and real brother, Jit Singh, in collusion with his wife, subsequently instituted a suit by falsely projecting Jit Singh as being identical to Nek Singh @ Ranjit Singh, and by denying the existence/validity of the General Power of Attorney. The applicants contend that this amounted to deliberate concealment of material facts, contradictory pleadings, impersonation, and fraud upon the Court with intent to defeat the applicants’ lawful title and grab the disputed land, leading to the present complaint. Upon trial, vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2018, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

3. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal before the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, who vide judgment dated 26.05.2025 dismissed the same.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is not assailing the conviction of the petitioner on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as the petitioner has already undergone total sentence of 07 months and 23 days.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today, which is taken on record and opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance. 7. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the Supreme Court (Three-Judge Bench) underscored that sentencing is not a mere formality in criminal proceedings. Wher