Criminal Revision No.1681 of 2010

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.1681 of 2010

Date of decision:-

Chandan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Narender @ Ravinder and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:-

Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana.

RITU BAHRI J.

The petitioner has challenged by way of this revision petition the

judgment dated 19.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad

whereby the accused Narender @ Ravinder and Manoj son of Shri Shankar Lal

have been acquitted in appeal against the judgment of conviction dated

09.6.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Faridabad.

The dispute revolves around an agreement to sell executed by Shri

Balwan Singh son of Kalla for a sale consideration of 3,30,000/- per acre in the

presence of Narender son of Dharam Pal resident of Jawan and Ran Singh son of

Ramhet resident of Prithla and Rs.5,000/- were given to Narender prior to

execution of the agreement to sell through Ran Singh. This agreement was

executed on the shop of Manoj and Rs.3,30,000/- were given to Balwant.

Criminal Revision No.1681 of 2010

-2-

Photograph of Balwant was affixed on the said agreement. When Balwant Singh

came to know about the agreement to sell, he approached the Panchayat.

Narender apologize before the Panchayat and assured to make the payment.

Thereafter the FIR was registered. The challan was presented against Narender

and Manoj. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. The trial Court has

placed reliance on the panchnama/compromise (Ex. PW7/A). The accused Manoj

and Narender had put their signatures and agreed to return back the amount of

Rs.95000/- by Manoj and Rs.2,15,000/- by Narender. The report (Ex.PW7/A)

was prepared by Shri Prem Chand Hudda, Assistant Director. The sample

signatures of accused Manoj and Narender taken by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st

Class, Faridabad and were sent for finger print examination. PW7 Kaptan Singh,

Finger Print Expert had identified the said signatures. In the disclosure

statements (Ex.PW3/A) of Narender and (Ex.PW3/B) of Manoj have admitted

their guilt, where they confessed their involvement in the commission of offence.

The accused had admitted before the Panchayat (Ex.PW5/A) that they have

ready to return the amount and put their signatures on the panchnama. The

trial Court had convicted the accused by holding that they have identified by Ram

Charan and Balwant Singh that they dishonestly and intentionally caused loss to

the complainant and received a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- by executing receipt

(Ex.PW3/A). They were convicted for commission of offence under Sections

420,467,468, 471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The entire prosecution story

is based on the inquiry conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate.

On appeal, the accused have been acquitted. It is held that the

disclosure statements have not been proved by the prosecution. Nothing was

recovered or discovered as related to the present case. The above statements

were recorded while they were in custody and since no disclosure statements

have been proved and no recovery has been effected in pursuance to the

Criminal Revision No.1681 of 2010

-3-

statements, in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, they are not

admissible. The hand writing and finger print expert report is Ex.PX. This has

not been proved by the prosecution. Author of the report has not been

examined. As per the report specimen signatures of the accused were taken in

Court. These signatures were taken on plain paper, which are not part of the

court proceedings and they have not been proved nor marked or exhibited. The

report was found not admissible in evidence. Another laxity in the prosecution

case