Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The petitioner, an Advocate, practicing at the District Courts at Ludhiana, has been charged with the said offences pursuant to FIR No. 110 having been registered on 18.05.2009 at Police Division No. 5, Civil Line, Ludhiana, initially in respect of some of the above mentioned offences, i.e. other than the offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 258, 260, 201 and 120-B of IPC, at the instance of the Sub Registrar, Central Ludhiana, on a complaint made to the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, with regard to sale deeds being executed on forged stamp papers. The petitioner was stated to have presented the said sale deeds on those forged stamp papers, as an Advocate for the parties concerned, to the Office of the Sub Registrar, for registration thereof.

He next contended that no fake stamp papers were recovered from the petitioners' house, as admitted by the Investigating Agency itself, upon verification of the said stamp papers.

He next contented that no machinery, or any tool that could be connected to making counterfeit stamp papers, was recovered from the petitioner.

His next contention was that the petitioner was only being implicated on the statement of another Advocate and one "Dhaba" owner, who stated that he had heard the petitioner and others, while sitting in his "Dhaba", talking about forged stamp papers.

14. First, coming to the report dated 07.05.2010. It is stated therein that the "main accused", i.e. the Stamp Vendor, Ravinderpal Singh, and one Bhupinder Kaur @ Jyoti, stated during investigation that all the forged stamp papers were presented by the petitioner before the Tehsildar (Sub- Registrar). The said report also states that Advocate J.S.Deol, who is stated to have drafted the "Vasikas" (deeds), had earlier, during investigation, stated that the forged deeds were got entered into his register by the petitioner. That report also refers to the alleged statement of one Sukhdev Singh, a "Dhaba" owner, to the effect that he had, allegedly, heard the petitioner and other co-accused talking about forged stamp papers, while sitting in his "Dhaba".

On the other hand, in the next report dated 09.01.2014, again filed under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., the petitioner is stated to have been found innocent by the Investigating Agency, primarily on the ground that there was no proof that the petitioner had presented the deeds on forged stamp papers before the Sub Registrar and that, in any case, under the Registration Act, it is only the seller/purchaser of the land, or his attorney, who can present the deeds before the Registrar for registration (as already noticed earlier). Further ground on which the petitioner was found innocent by the investigating agency, was that, during the search of his house, none of the stamp papers recovered had been found to be forged.