258

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No.3227 of 2014

Date of Decision : 17.11.2022

Jatinderpal Singh

.....Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present :

Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab

for the respondent/State.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment dated 20^th of August,

2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran whereby

judgment of conviction passed by Trial Court in FIR No.119 dated 5^th of

June, 2007, registered at Police Station Patti, holding the petitioner guilty of

offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC has been upheld and

affirmed.

2.

Trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo following

imprisonment :

Sr. No.

Under Section Sentence to

undergo

Fine

In default of

payment of

fine

1

467 IPC

Rigorous

Imprisonment for

3 years

Rs.2000/-

One month

DEEPAK KUMAR

2022.12.21 15:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR No.3227 of 2014

2

Sr. No.

Under Section Sentence to

undergo

Fine

In default of

payment of

fine

2

468 IPC

Rigorous

Imprisonment for

2 years

Rs.2000/-

One month

3

471 IPC

Rigorous

Imprisonment for

2 years

Rs.2000/-

One month

3.

All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

4.

Ball was set into motion on the complaint filed by Mehal Singh

son of Kesar Singh, Harbans Singh son of Piara Singh and Karaj Singh son

of Bachittar Singh to S.S.P. Tan Taran alleging that :-

<.....Circle Patwari Bhupinder Singh in connivance with

Field Officer of Centurion Bank of Punjab namely Jatinderpal

Singh mortgaged the 20 acres of land of their village in favour of

the bank for a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.15,00,000/- in the name of

accused Jatinderpal Singh and defrauded them. Accused

Jatinderpal Singh alongwith Patwari, Bank officials, officials of the

revenue department were involved in the conspiracy for mortgage

of specific numbers of land belonging to them registered at serial

no.265 dated 30.4.2007 by Naib Tehsildar Phuman Singh..=

5.

In investigation, it was found that petitioner Jatinderpal Singh

prepared forged Jamabandi. Bhupinder Singh, Lambardar and Dilbagh

Singh attested the mortgaged deed. Trial Court after analyzing the evidence

on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against

Bhupinder Singh, Lambardar and Dilbagh Singh beyond reasonable doubt

and acquitted them of charges framed against them. However, the petitioner

was held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC

DEEPAK KUMAR

2022.12.21 15:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR No.3227 of 2014

3

and was sentenced ibid.

6.

Petitioner preferred appeal. The same was dismissed without

merit. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the judgments passed

by the Courts below held that there is no scientific evidence to prove

forgery. Rather IO filed an application for obtaining specimen handwriting

of the accused for comparison but the same was not sent to Forensic Lab

and, thus, the prosecution has withheld the best piece of evidence for which

adverse inference ought to have been drawn. The petitioner has been

convicted on the basis of an opinion rendered by private handwriting

expert. It is matter of common knowledge that the private handwriting

experts do favour the parties engaging them and, thus, an expert witness

who is interested should not have been believed by the Courts below.

7.

Mr. Sharma further submits that mere production of a forged

document will not lead to inference of forgery by the accused, he can at the

best be held guilty of offence punishable under Section 471 IPC but not

under Sections 467 and 468 IPC. He submits that as per settled proposition

of law, forgery cannot be presumed but has to be proved by leading cogent

piece of evidence.

8.

Ld. State Counsel on the other hand has supported the findings

r