Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 November, 2008
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Revision No. 1601 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1601 of 2008
Date of Decision:November 16,2010
Surinder Singh ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.P.S.Hundal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Saurav Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioner-Surinder Singh was convicted for an offence under Sections 420/467/468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Samana. Vide order of even date,the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate passed the following sentence:-
S.No Under Section Sentence awarded to the accused 420 IPC Convict is sentenced to undergo RI for 2 ½ years and to pay 1 fine of Rs.1000/-.
468 IPC Convict is sentenced to undergo RI for 2 ½ years and to pay
2 fine of Rs.1000/-
467 IPC Convict is sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a 3 fine of Rs.1000/-
120 B IPC Convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2½ 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-
Criminal Revision No. 1601 of 2008 2All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Patiala vide judgment dated 8.8.2008. Hence, the present revision petition.
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:-
"2. Succulently the prosecution version in the instant case is that on the written complaint of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala vide Endorsement No. 309 dated 19.2.1997 made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala a criminal case was registered on the written complaint of Nagar Panchayat Mavi Sappari, Tehsil Patiala to the effect that when they obtained a copy of jamabandi for the year 1951-52 regarding Shamlat land of their village from the Patwari Surinder Singh, they found that the aforesaid Patwari had made over-writings in column No.5 of the jamabandi by way of eraser and word "Chargah" and in lieu of that the entry in the name of Udham Singh and Mehal Singh sons of Labh Singh was substituted. Then they obtained a copy of this khewat from the office of Kanungo, they found that the entry regarding "Chargah"
was still in existence in "Parat Sarkar, even in the jamabandi for the year 1951-52.
3. On the above said complaint, an inquiry was ordered in which it was found that in the jamabandi for the year 1951-52, the names of Udham Singh and Mehal Singh have been shown in column No.5 of cultivation, whereas in "Parat Sarkar" the said land is still shown as "Chargah". In the subsequent jamabandi for the Criminal Revision No. 1601 of 2008 3 year 1955-56 and 1959-60 the names of said persons have been entered in the "Parat Patwari" as well as "Parat Sarkar" by the concerned Patwari just to give benefit to Udham Singh and Mehal Singh and to cause loss to the Gram Panchayat, wherein in the "Parat Sarkar" regarding the land being "Chargah" is still true and correct. It was found in the inquiry that Patwari Surinder Singh by deleting the word "Chargah" and by entering the names of Udham Singh and Mehal Singh and then by issuance of jamabandi for the year 1951-52 and for the year 1959-60 on 8.12.86 and 5.1.87, the Patwari has connived and has entered into a criminal conspiracy with Udham Singh and Mehal Singh as well as Tara Singh Jakho, Deputy Development and Panchayat Officer (for short DDPO) because on the basis of above said jamabandi Tara Singh Jakho has passed a judgment dated 9.1.1989 holding Udham Singh and Mehal Singh to be in possession of the said property. On the basis of said judgment, mutation no. 1257 was sanctioned in favour of Mehal Singh and others regarding 60 acres of land belonging to Guru Panchayat. In this way, Surinder Singh Patwari and others have committed serious offences and as such they be punished in accordance with law,
4. On the basis of the said letter/complaint from Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, a case under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, copy of the order passed by DDPO as well as copy of the jamabandi were taken into police possession. The accused was arrested. Then the necessary Criminal Revision No. 1601 of 2008 4 sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was obtained from Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. A posting order of Surinder Singh Patwari was also obtained from his office. After investigation, the challan against accused Surinder Singh, Patwari was furnished in the court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Samana, District Patiala"
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had committed the alleged offence. As per DW1, handwriting expert, the handwriting on the questioned document i.e. Parat Patwar for the year 1951-52 was not in the hand of the petitioner. The complainant and the other material witnesses had not been examined during trial.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Petitioner had issued a copy of the jamabandi for the year 1951-1952, 1959-1960 by writing in the column of cultivation that Udham Singh and Mehal Singh were in cultivating possession of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat, whereas, the land was being used as Chargah Muvasian.
PW1 Vijay Balab Singh proved Exhibit PA complaint made by ADC Patiala and Exhibit PB complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
PW2 Hari Singh proved the revenue record Exhibits PC to PE.
PW3 Diwan Chand proved the order passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (for short `DDPO') whereby it was held that Mehal Singh and Udham Singh were in possession of the suit property prior to 25.1.1950 and the land had never been used for common purposes. Criminal Revision No. 1601 of 2008 5 The said witness also proved the copies of jamabandies Exhibit PW3/B to Exhibit PW3/J-9.
PW4 HC Jagdish Singh deposed that on 21.8.1997, copy of order dated 31.1.1989 and copies of jamabandies were taken in possession by Inspector Bakshish Singh.
PW5 Inder Kumar proved the signatures of Deputy Commissioner on Exhibit PW5/A. PW6 Jugraj Singh deposed that in the year 1997 he was posted as a Patwari in Halqa Chuthera. He proved copies of jamabandi for the year 1951-52 and 1959-60, Exhibit PW6/A and Exhibit PW6/B. He further deposed that the original record was got lost by him while he was travelling in a train. PW6 when called for further examination deposed that he had brought the summoned record . He further deposed that in the column of cultivation after erasing with the eraser the words Udham Singh, Mehal Singh had been added in the jamabandi for the year 1951-52. As per the jamabandi for the year 1959-60 in the column of cultivation after erasing an entry with the eraser words Udham Singh, Mehal Singh had been added.
DW1 Inderjit Singh has submitted that he had examined the questioned writing on Parat Patwar of the year 1951-52 and 1959-60 with the standard writing of Surinder Singh but he was of the opinion that the same did not tally with each other.
In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner was that he had prepared incorrect copies of jamabandies for the year 1951-52 and 1959-60 after making interpolation in the original record in the column of cultivation. It has been alleged that the petitioner had changed the entry in the column of cultivation from 'Charagh Muvasian' to Udham Singh and Criminal Revision No. 1601 of 2008 6 Mahal Singh. The said disputed copies of jamabandies were produced by Udham Singh and Mehal Singh in the Court of DDPO and on the basis of the same, the case was decided in favour of Mehal Singh and Udham Singh qua their possession over the suit land.
An inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner- cum-Collector Patiala and on the basis of the same, the complaint was lodged. However, the inquiry report has not been duly proved on record. The learned trial Court fell in error in placing reliance on the inquiry report which had not been duly exhibited during trial. Consequently, the inquiry report was not put to the petitioner when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused as the trial Court has placed reliance on a report which was neither exhibited nor put to the petitioner during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise a perusal of the inquiry report reveals that it was found that some Patwari had made interpolation in the entry in the column of cultivation in the jamabandies in question but it was not specifically held in the inquiry report that the interpolation in question had been done by the appellant.
The members of the Panchayat were also not examined during trial to substantiate their case to the effect that the entry in the column of cultivation had, in fact, been interpolated by the petitioner. The members of the Panchayat were the aggrieved persons in this case as the land in question is described to be in the ownership of the Panchayat.
A perusal of the order passed by the DDPO also reveals that the Panchayat was duly represented before the said authority but at that time, no objection was taken qua incorrect preparation of the jamabandi in Criminal Revision No. 1601 of 2008 7 question. The complaint in this case was made after a long delay. As per the report of the hand writing expert, the questioned writing did not match with the standard hand writing of the appellant. There is no evidence to the contrary. Prosecution never got the questioned writing examined from a hand writing expert. In these circumstances, the trial Court has erred in discarding the report of the hand writing expert on irrelevant consideration.
PW6 Jugraj Singh had prepared the copies of jamabandies in question Exhibit PW6/A and Exhibit PW6/B but he never made any note qua interpolation in the column of cultivation in the said jamabandies in question.
An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. However, the prosecution is required to establish its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The prosecution case is not free from doubt. There is no concrete material on record that the interpolation in the jamabandies in question in column of cultivation had done by the appellant.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and judgment of dismissal of appeal are set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
( Sabina ) Judge November 17, 2010 arya