Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parat sarkar in Gurvinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 March, 2011Matching Fragments
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.2.1994, appellant was posted as Halqa Patwari Bareh. While serving as Halqa Patwari, appellant had forged the parat patwar of mutation No. 9984. Mutation No. 9984, was sanctioned by the appellant, by forging the signatures of Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar) qua the estate of Mohinder Singh. Appellant had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from Ram Singh, for sanctioning the mutation by forging the signatures of Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar) Budhlada. During routine inspection of the documents by the then Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Budhlada, it came to his notice that order on the parat patwar qua mutation No. 9984 was forged by Gurvinder Singh, under the signatures of Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. It had also come to his notice that under the order on parat patwar, Gurvinder Singh, Patwari, also forged the signatures of Sohan Singh, the then Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), Budhlada. Parat Sarkar, was separated from the parat patwar and was traced from the record but in the parat sarkar there was no order regarding sanctioning of mutation No. 9984 by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar). Mutation was sanctioned by the Halqa Patwari on 22.2.1994. Halqa Kanungo, had compared the entry on 23.2.1994. Order dated 31.1.1994, was forged by the appellant alleged to have been passed by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar). Mutations No. 9962 and 9974, were sanctioned by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar). Disputed writing/signatures while sanctioning mutation No. 9984 were compared with the standard writing/signatures of Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar) and the same were not tallying with the standard signatures/writing of Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar).
PW-6 Gurmel Singh, Kanungo, stated that as per the summoned record Gurvincer Singh, Patwari, was posted as Revenue Patwari of village Bareh after revocation of his suspension. After that Gurvinder Singh, was discharged from the Department. Ex. PE is the copy of the discharge order.
PW-7 Gurmit Singh, Assistant Office Kanungo, Budhlada, stated that parat sarkar of mutations No. 9962, 9974 and 9984, were produced before the police.
PW-8 ASI Gurjit Pal Singh, stated that on 26.11.1994, he was posted as SHO, P.S. Boha. On receipt of letter Ex. PA from SSP, Mansa, formal FIR was recorded.
Sohan Singh, appeared as PW-5 then stated that mutations No. 9962 and 9974, were sanctioned by him. Disputed order is not in his hands and the order was not signed by him. At the time of statement of Sohan Singh, parat sarkar was not on the file. Parat patwar was in the custody of the appellant. Parat sarkar was in the office and for production of parat sarkar of mutation No. 9984 further examination-in-chief of Sohan Singh, was deffered. Unfortunately, after that Sohan Singh, had died so due to this reason he was not produced for further examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
PW-11 Sh. G.C. Garg, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, stated that on 29.11.1994, he was posted as Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa and on that day in view of the application of police, specimen writing/signatures of Gurvinder Singh-appellant were taken in his presence. No suggestion to Sh. G.C. Garg (PW-11) the then JMIC, Mansa, that specimen writing/signatures of Gurvinder Singh-appellant, were not taken in Court in view of the application of the prosecution.
Disputed writing/signatures of Sohan Singh, were compared with his standard writing/signatures and after comparison expert opined that disputed writing/signatures of Sohan Singh, are not tallying with his standard writing/signatures. Expert had also compared that specimen hand-writings and standard writings of the appellant with the disputed writings Q1 and after comparison opined that the same are written by one and the same person. No doubt science regarding identification of writing/signatures is not a perfect science but appellant was the custodian of the record i.e. parat patwar. After entering the mutation, he was to present the record before the Sanctioning Authority. No case of the appellant that record was handed over to somebody else to present before the Sanctioning Authority, for sanctioning of mutation. When record was in the custody of the appellant then he was to explain who passed the disputed mutation order No. 9984. If disputed mutation order was passed by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar), then standard signatures/writing of Sohan Singh, should have tallied with the disputed writing/signatures Q1. After the mutation was entered then mutation was to be sanctioned by Sohan Singh, Assistant Collector, Grade II (Tehsildar). Order of mutation was to be passed in parat sarkar. Entry was also to be made in parat patwar. Disputed writing/signatures of mutation No. 9984 was not found tallying with the entry of mutation in parat sarkar.