IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202 Criminal Revision No.248 of 2008 Date of decision: September 17^th, 2025 Parkash Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

for the petitioners.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

This revision petition has been preferred by Parkash Singh and Ram Piara assailing the judgments of conviction and order of sentence dated 2502.2006 passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.01.2008, whereby both the petitioners were held guilty under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as follows:

471 r/w 2 years `1,000/- SI for 15 days

120-B of the IPC

2. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

3. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioners has contended that both the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioners as the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was urged that the petitioners were merely attesting witnesses to the impugned sale deed and had no role in the preparation or execution of the document. Learned counsel further submitted that the principal accused, Gurmeet Singh, who had impersonated the true owner and was the direct beneficiary of the forged transaction, has since expired. In these circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 120B of the IPC is argued to be unsustainable. It has also been pointed out that the learned Appellate Court had already acquitted the petitioners of the charges under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC and in the absence of conviction of the principal accused under Section 420 of the IPC, the provisions of Section

120B of the IPC could not be invoked against them.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the concurrent findings of conviction. It was submitted that the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the petitioners were not innocent signatories but active participants in the conspiracy which led to the execution and registration of a forged sale deed in respect of land belonging to a dead person. The prosecution witnesses, documents, and the inquiry report of the District Revenue Officer leave no manner of doubt about their complicity.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

6. As per the case of the prosecution, Hukam Singh, resident of Mohali, submitted an application to the District Revenue Officer, Ropar, alleging that Gurmeet Singh had fraudulently executed a sale deed dated 24.03.1994, in respect of land measuring 11 kanals, 12 marlas, belonging to one Gurdial Singh alias Gurdarshan Singh. Upon inquiry, it transpired that Gurdial Singh had, in fact, died on 30.09.1979, long before the alleged execution of the sale deed.

7. The DRO submitted his report to the District Magistrate, who in turn directed the registration of a case. The FIR was accordingly registered against Gurmeet Singh (the impersonator), and the present petitioners, Parkash Singh (Lambardar) and Ram Piara, who were shown to be attesting witnesses to the forged document.

8. Investigation revealed that prime accused Gurmeet Singh, in conspiracy with the petitioners, had procured impersonation of the deceased Gurdial Singh and, on that basis, secured attestation and registration of the sale deed. Upon completion of investigation, challan was presented and charges under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC were framed against all the accused.

9. The prose