Crl. Revision No.2663 of 2011 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Crl. Revision No.2663 of 2011 (O&M)

Date of decision: 01.11.2011

Malak Singh @ Malik Singh and another

....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

Present: - Mr. K.S. Gill, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioner.

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

*****

ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL)

Accused/revisionists are assailing judgment dated 17.10.2011

passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jalandhar,

whereby appeal filed by the accused/revisionists (appellants therein) was

dismissed upholding the judgment of conviction and sentence dated

29.8.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar.

Brief facts of the present case are that Davinder Singh son of

Malkit Singh Chadha and Mohinder Kaur wife of Pritam Singh filed a

complaint with the police alleging that property No. EF-190 bearing

khasra No.8073/3 measuring 7 marlas 81 sq. ft. situated at Old Railway

Road, Jalandhar, was earlier owned by Joginder Kaur wife of Charan

Singh and Smt. Amar Kaur wife of Sucha Singh; complainants have

purchased the property in question from Joginder Kaur and Amar Kaur

vide registered sale deed through their power of attorney. Accused No.1

to 6, as mentioned in the complaint, have started claiming themselves

Crl. Revision No.2663 of 2011 (O&M)

-2-

owner of the property on the basis of forged, fabricated and

manufactured documents of power of attorney as well as sale deed; after

investigation challan was submitted in the Court for offences punishable

under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC against the accused/revisionist,

however, no challan was submitted against Iqbal Singh and others

saying that they are not found on the address given and are untraceable.

Charges were framed and thereafter from the side of prosecution Amar

Kaur as PW1, ASI Rajinder Nath as PW2, SI Amrik Singh as PW3,

Resham Singh as PW4, Paramjit Singh as PW5, Joga Singh, Clerk of

D.C. Office, Jalandhar, as PW6, Bachan Singh son of Sher Singh as

PW7 and Taranjit Singh son of Jaswant Singh as PW8 were examined.

All the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case stating

that complainants are the owners in possession of the property and they

have purchased the property from the then owners Joginder Kaur and

Amar Kaur. It has come in the evidence that Iqbal Singh has executed

power of attorney in favour of Malak Singh accused/revisionist No.1

saying original owners i.e. Joginder Kaur and Amar Kaur had executed

'Wills' dated 13.5.1979 in his favour, therefore, he is the owner of the

property and thereafter Malak Singh accused has executed sale deed in

favour of his own son i.e. another accused Satnam Singh, revisionist

No.2. Learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court have found

both the accused/revisionists guilty for offences punishable under

Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and they were directed to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two months each for an offence under Section 467

Crl. Revision No.2663 of 2011 (O&M)

-3-

IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of one and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in

default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one

month each for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and they

were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and

half years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of

fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each under

Section 471 IPC. Both of the