Crl.Rev.No.844 of 2009

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Crl.Rev.No.844 of 2009

Date of Decision:- 07.07.2009

Swaranjit Kaur

....Petitioner(s)

vs.

Jagmohan and others

....Respondent(s)

***

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

***

Present:-

Mrs.Rahish Pahwa Dedeja, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

***

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner challenging the order dated 6.6.2008 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, vide which the accused

have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-

complainant is an old lady who had been deprived of her property on the

basis of a power of attorney which was prepared by her sons by mis-

representation and after obtaining her signatures on some papers. By

making misuse of that power of attorney, they had sold out a plot in favour

of Amarjit Singh. She submits that the signatures on the papers were

obtained by her sons on the pretext that the same were required for pension

case. It is further submitted that the power of attorney which was executed

in favour of the sons was cancelled by her and a communication to that

effect revoking the power of attorney was sent through U.P.C. to the

accused who despite being aware of the said revocation, proceeded to sell

Crl.Rev.No.844 of 2009

-2-

the plot in question. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was able to

prove before the Court the allegations which she had made in her complaint

and had appeared before the trial Court to support her complaint and

deposed accordingly. Despite there being overwhelming evidence against

the accused, the same has not been taken into consideration by the trial

Court while acquitting them. It has been submitted by the counsel for the

petitioner that assuming that the power of attorney was got executed by the

accused from the petitioner but nevertheless after the cancellation deed

dated 22.7.1998, ( Exhibit P-2 ) had been executed by the petitioner and the

said cancellation deed having been conveyed through UPC dated 23.7.1998

Exhibit PW9/A which fact was proved by production of Amarjit Singh

P.R.O. of the Postal Department as PW-9 who stated before the trial Court

that the UPC receipt so produced in the Court bears the stamp of the Post

Office. The sale deed could not have been executed on 29.7.1998. Counsel

further submits that the postal receipt having been proved on record dated

23.7.1998, the presumption with regard to the said receipt of the

cancellation deed upon the sons, is attached thereto and, therefore, the sale

deed entered into on the basis of the power of attorney dated 29.7.1998 is a

clear fraud being played upon the petitioner.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through

the records of the case.

The power of attorney which is said to have been got executed

by the accused by misleading her is a registered document whereon

endorsement was made on the backside thereof. The said endorsement

shows that the Sub Registrar had read over the contents of the power of

attorney to Swaranjit Kaur (petitioner ) who signed the said endorsement

Crl.Rev.No.844 of 2009

-3-

before the Sub Registrar. The contention, therefore, of the petitioner-

complainant that the accused had obtained her signatures on blank stamp

papers and the power of attorney was fabricated by using the said papers,

cannot be sustained. The cancellation deed is dated 22.7.1998 but as has

come on record, the UPC receipt which has been placed on record is dated

23.7.1998 whereas the notice which is said to have been sent by the letter

UPC receipt thereof is dated 23.7.1998 bears the date as 27.8.1998. A

document which has not as yet come into existence and bears the date as

27.8.1998 could not have been sent through UPC dated