Nahar Singh vs State of Punjab

H. K. Sandhu, J.

One Dasondha Singh son of Phuman Singh, resident of village Gaggara, Tehsil Samrala, filed a complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Samrala alleging that he sold his tractor bearing registration No. PWL0280 to Nahar Singh, the present petitioner, for a sum of Rs. 45,000/, on

25th May, 1980. Nahar Singh did not make payment of the sale consideration in cash but executed a pronote for that amount. No affidavit was

given to Nahar Singh regarding the sale of the tractor but Nahar Singh, by forging an affidavit, got the ownership of the tractor transferred to his

name by misrepresenting the facts on 14th November, 1980. This Complaint was sent to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Samrala for the

registration of a case. One the basis of the complaint FIR, copy of which was Ex. PA/1, was registered. After completion of the investigation

Nahar Singh as well as Bachan Singh who had identified Nahar Singh before the Oath Commissioner were challaned. They were charged for the

offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

At trial the contention of Nahar Singh was that he purchased the tractor for Rs. 45,000/ and executed a pronote in favour of Dasondha Singh.

He paid the amount to Dasondha Singh on 2191980 and Dasondha Singh executed affidavit for getting the ownership transferred in his name.

Bachan Singh accused contended that he was present at the seat of the Oath Commissioner when the Oath Commissioner enquired from him if he

know Dasondha Singh. He replied in the affirmative and then his thumb impression was obtained. The trial Court perused the evidence, heard

arguments and came to the conclusion that Nahar Singh with the assistance of Bachan Singh forged the thumb impression of Dasondha Singh on

affidavit Ex. PB/2 which gave authority to Nahar Singh to get the ownership of the transfer transferred to his name and Nahar Singh was guilty of

the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC while Bachan Singh was liable for the offence under Section 467 read with Section 109 IPC.

Bachan Singh who was stated to be an old man of the age of 70 years was released on probation on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 4000/

with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year, while Nahar Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for one year and

to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ for the offence under Section 467 IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and to pay fine of

Rs. 5000/. for the offence under Section 468 IPC. No separate sentence was recorded under Section 471 IPC and the sentences of imprisonment

on both counts were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by this judgment dated 18121984 rendered by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Samrala, Nahar Singh preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 4.10.1986. Nahar Singh

has not filed the present revision petition assailing his conviction and sentence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that there was no reliable evidence on record to show that Nahar Singh had forged the affidavit in order

to get the ownership of the tractor transferred in his favour. In fact Dasondha Singh who was the owner of the tractor admitted that he had sold his

tractor to Nahar Singh for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/ though the amount was not paid to him in cash and Nahar Singh had executed a pronote

for the same consideration in his favour. The tractor was handed over to Nahar Singh so there was no reason for Nahar Singh to forge the

affidavit. In fact the affidavit was handed over to Nahar Singh by Dashonda Singh himself. Even otherwise the provisions of Sections 467 and 498

IPC were not applicable and the petitioner could not be held guilty for these offences in view of admitted sale in his favour. The ingredients of

Sections 467 and 468 IPC were not made out. There was no evidence on record to show that there was any dishonest intention or fraud on the

part of the petitioner. I find that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel. It is correct that Dasondha Singh sold his tractor to the

petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/ but the amount of sale consideration was not paid in cash and only a pronote for that amount and also

for some other amount taken by the petitioner from Dasondha Singh in cash was executed in favour of Dasondha Singh. As the amount of

consideration was not paid the complainant Dasondha Singh did not furnish any affidavit for getting the registration of the vehicle transferred in the

name of the petitioner. It is not denied that affidavit which was produced before the registering authority did not bear the thumb impression of

Dasondha Singh and it was a forged document. Although the tractor was handed over to the petitioner still there was no document in his

possession to support his claim or title and in order to support his claim a forged affidavit was produced to get the registration of the tractor

transferred in his name. The learned Courts below rightly held the petitioner guilty of the offences with which he was charged and the conviction of

the petitioner for those offences is upheld.

It was next urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has faced this litigation for the last about 12 years and he has already undergone

sufficient harassment and mental agony. Dasondha Singh had filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 79,133.25 paise, which

amount included the sale price of the tractor. This suit was decreed and whole of the payment had been made to Dasondha Singh. A photostat

copy of the order passed in execution dated 521988 was placed on record to show that claim of Dasondha Singh was fully satisfied. It was thus,

prayed that the petitioner may be dealt with leniently and may not be sent to jail. Keeping in view the prolonged litigation and the physical and

mental agony suffered by the petitioner I accept this contention of the learned counsel and reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period

during which the petitioner remained in custody. Sentence of fine is maintained. With this modification in the sentence the revision petition stands

disposed of.