Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukdev Singh vs Kuldip Singh And Another on 20 September, 2013
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
Criminal Revision No. 547 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
Date of decision: 20.09.2013
1. Criminal Revision No. 547 of 2013 (O&M)
Sukdev Singh ........ Petitioner
Versus
Kuldip Singh and another .......Respondents
2. Criminal Revision No. 551 of 2013 (O&M)
Sukhdev Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
Surinder Singh and another .....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-.-
Present: Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioners
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Rekha Mittal, J.
By way of this order, I shall dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 547 and 551 of 2013, as they have emerged out of judgment dated 27.11.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeals preferred by respondents Kuldip Singh and Surinder Singh against their conviction and sentence by the trial Court, have been accepted and they have been acquitted of the offence charged against them. Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.10.01 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 547 of 2013 (O&M) 2
The facts relevant for disposal of the present petitions are that Sukhdev Singh, petitioner submitted an application dated 20.02.2003 for registration of case against Kuldip Singh son of Sher Singh and Amanjot Kaur daughter of Gurmail Singh, residents of Village Purrain, Tehsil Jagraon for execution of sale deed in respect of land measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas fraudulently on the basis of special power of attorney, despite the fact that said special power of attorney stood revoked by the complainant and an intimation with regard to revocation was sent to Kuldip Singh. Kuldip Singh, on 29.01.2003 sold the land measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas, vide registered sale deed in favour of his daughter namely Amanjot Kaur, accused No. 2. Surinder Singh appeared on behalf of Amanjot Kaur, vendee, at the time of execution of the sale deed. After seeking opinion of ADA/DA (Legal) Jagraon and completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against Kuldip Singh and Surinder Singh for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC').
The learned trial Court (Court of Ms Girish, Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Jagraon), on conclusion of trial, held Kuldip Singh and Surinder Singh guilty of offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC and they were accordingly sentenced for the said offences.
Feeling aggrieved against the verdict of trial Court, Kuldip Singh and Surinder Singh filed separate appeals, which were disposed of by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide common judgment dated 27.11.2012, impugned before this Court.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.10.01 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 547 of 2013 (O&M) 3 committed a grave error in accepting the appeals of the accused and wrongly reversed well founded and detailed judgment passed by the trial Court. It is argued that Kuldip Singh, brother of the petitioner, was appointed as an attorney by Sukhdev Singh for sale of land measuring 4 kanal 0 marla situated in Village Purrain, Tehsil Jagraon vide registered Special Power of Attorney dated 07.10.1998. The petitioner (complainant therein) sold the land to Gurminder Singh son of Gurdev Singh, resident of Village Purrain, Tehsil Jagraon, vide registered sale deed dated 29.11.1999. On 14.07.1999, the petitioner revoked the aforesaid special power of attorney and a notice with regard to revocation was sent to attorney holder Kuldip Singh. It is argued with vehemence that Kuldip Singh after ceasing to be an attorney of Sukhdev Singh and getting due information with regard to revocation of special power of attorney by Sukhdev Singh, still executed a sale deed dated 29.01.2003 in favour of his daughter Amanjot Kaur with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant/petitioner.
The appellate Court noticed that the prosecution failed to produce on record copy of notice dated 14.07.1999, purported to be sent by the complainant (petitioner herein) informing Kuldip Singh regarding revocation of special power of attorney. Only photocopy of Under Postal Certificate (in short, 'UPC') was placed on record and the same was merely marked but not exhibited. The Court held that there is no evidence on record that Kuldip Singh received notice sent through UPC. UPC marked 'A' was never put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code'). It was further held that no presumption can be drawn from the photocopy of UPC that the same was received by addressee Kuldip Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.10.01 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 547 of 2013 (O&M) 4 Singh and at the most it raises a presumption that it was sent to addressee Kuldip Singh. The appellate Court has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj and another 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 241 (P&H), wherein it has been held that if a notice was sent under certificate of posting (UPC), presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act does not apply to a letter posted under certificate of posting and presumption under section 114(f) of Evidence Act shall apply in such a case that a letter was posted but no presumption can be drawn that it was received by the addressee. Keeping in view the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove receipt of notice by Kuldip Singh in regard to revocation of special power of attorney, the prosecution has failed to prove culpability of the accused that Kuldip Singh executed sale deed dated 29.01.2003 in favour of his daughter Amanjot Kaur after gaining knowledge that he was no longer authorized to alienate the property of his brother Sukhdev Singh.
Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error in these finding of fact recorded by the appellate Court. There is no material on record that a copy of notice purported to be sent to Kuldip Singh regarding cancellation of special power of attorney was produced on record much less proved and exhibited in accordance with law. The original UPC receipt has not seen the light of day and the photocopy thereof was marked without any permission to prove that document by way of secondary evidence. In this view of the matter, I find myself unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner that the appellate court has committed any error much less illegality in reversing the findings of the trial Court by recording a clear finding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Kuldip Singh had an intimation of cancellation of special power of attorney executed by Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.10.01 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 547 of 2013 (O&M) 5 the petitioner in his favour.
The learned trial Court committed a serious error in recording a finding of guilt against the respondents but fortunately the appellate Court rectified that error. Nevertheless, the appellate Court has also failed to advert itself to another important aspect of the matter. The plea of the complainant is that Kuldip Singh executed sale deed in favour of his daughter with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself thereby committed offence of fraud and forgery.
Indisputably, Sukhdev Singh had already alienated land of his ownership measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas in favour of Gurminder Singh son Gurdev Singh, resident of Village Purrain, Tehsil Jagron vide sale deed executed on 29.11.1999. As Sukhdev Singh had already alienated his property in favour of Gurminder Singh and thereby ceased to be owner of the property in question, what loss could be caused to him even if his attorney holder Kuldip Singh executed a sale deed on 29.01.2003 in favour of his daughter Amanjot Kaur. There cannot be any dispute about the settled proposition of law that no one can have a better title than his vendor. As Sukhdev Singh complainant was no longer owner of the land measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas which stood vested in Gurminder Singh son of Gurdev Singh through registered sale deed dated 29.11.1999, executed by the complainant, Kuldip Singh, special power attorney holder of Sukhdev Singh could not bestow any better right in favour of his daughter by execution of sale deed. These facts are sufficient to falsify and belie the plea of the complainant that Kuldip Singh executed the sale deed with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. The vendee from Kuldip Singh was the person who could express grievance against Kuldip Singh that he had Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.10.01 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 547 of 2013 (O&M) 6 alienated property in her favour without any title thereto.
In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was made out much less proved against the accused, therefore, the appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and held the respondents/accused being not guilty of offence charged against them. There is no error much less illegality in the impugned judgment as would call for interference.
In the result, both the petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
Before parting with this order, this Court is at pains to record its deep felt concern in regard to opinion expressed by the concerned ADA/DA (Legal), Jagraon that a case is made out for initiating legal action against the accused, despite having been made clear in the noting that the complainant has already sold the property in question in favour of Gurminder Singh son of Gurdev Singh, therefore, left with no right, title or interest in the land in question and resultantly sale of land by Kuldip Singh in favour of his daughter Amanjot Kaur could not cause any prejudice to the rights of complainant Sukhdev Singh. The opinion given by the aforesaid officer was followed by arrest of the accused and Amanjot Kaur.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, to initiate appropriate action against the concerned Law Officer, if he is still in service.
(Rekha Mittal) 20.09.2013 Judge mohan Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.10.01 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh