Sant Singh and anr. vs State of Punjab

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Mst. Channo widow of Har Sahai was owner of 22 Kanals 5 Marlas of agricultural land at village Baniawal. The land had been allotted to her by the Rehabilitation Department. The petitioners Sant Singh and Surinder Singh are alleged to have obtained a sale deed dated 25th April, 1974 in their favour by putting forward some other lady personating as Mst. Channo. When this fact, came to the notice of Mst. Channo, she instituted a suit in the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Jagraon for a declaration that she was owner of the land in question and she had not sold the same in favour of Sant Singh and Surinder Singh. The suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge but the judgment and decree were reversed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, by order dated 29th October, 1978. An application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made in the Court of learned Additional District Judge for prosecution of Sant Singh and Surinder Singh. It may be added that R.S.A. No. 2153 of 1978 against the judgment of Shri Amarbir Singh Gill, A.D.J. has since been dismissed by this Court by order dated 10th December, 1990. The application under section 340 Cr. P.C. was allowed and Shri R.P. Gaind, who had in the meanwhile succeeded Shri Amarbir Singh Gill as Additional District Judge, filed a complaint against the petitioners for offence under sections 193, 195, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 34 IPC. At the trial the prosecution examined Shri R P. Gaind PW1 Additional District Judge who had allowed the application under section 340 of the Cr. P.C. and had lodged the complaint. Kewal Ram PW4 who had prepared the original allotment letter Exhibit P1 on the basis of the record of the Rehabilitation Department, photostat copy whereof was placed on record is Exhibit P9 and Bhagat Ram PW5 who had prepared the copy of the allotment letter Exhibit D1 supplied to the petitioners. He stated that the copy prepared by him and compared by Ram Piara Clerk has in favour of Channo widow of Har Sahai in accordance with the original record and it was not in favour of Jiwni widow of Har Sahai. Shri R.C. Sharma PW8, SubJudgecum Judicial Magistrate stated that he had recorded the statement of Sant Singh in civil suit Channo v. Sant Singh etc. on 2731978. Sant Singh had in the said statement produced, the allotment letter,photostat copy of which was Exhibit P.S. The statement had been read over to Sant Singh and he had admitted the same to be correct and thereafter the statement was signed by Mr. Sharma. Smt. Channo appeared as PW9.

The plea of the accused was one of denial. They produced copy of Jamabandi Exhibit DA and DB in defence.

On an evaluation of the evidence, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon convicted the petitioners. They were awarded one year''s R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/ and in default R 1. for 5 days under sections 468, 471 and 196 with the aid of section 34 IPC. They were further sentenced to RA. for six months under section 465 read with section 34 IPC. Sant Singh petitioner alone was sentenced to one year''s R.I and a fine of Rs. 200/ and in default to one month''s R. 1 under section 193 IPC. The substantive sentences were made concurrent. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 971985. The present revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

It was pointed out by Shri R.S. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset that both the petitioners along with two other persons had been prosecuted in case F.I.R. No. 239 of 1975, Police Station Jagraon, under sections 420, 419, 468 and 421 IPC relating to the alleged obtaining of sale deed dated 2541974 by putting forward some other lady instead of the real owner Mst. Channo widow of Har Sahai, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class by order dated 891979 acquitted all the accused including the petitioners. The petitioners could not, therefore, be tried again.

There is no merit in the above contention. The limited subject matter of the present complaint against the petitioners was that : (i) they obtained a certified copy of the allotment letter from the Rehabilitation Department which was in favour of Channo widow of Har Sahai. The said copy produced in the Court contained the name Jiwni widow of Har Sahai. This alteration was, prima facie, held to have been made by the petitioners, and (ii) Sant Singh appeared in the course of civil suit in which the aforesaid fabricated document was produced and he supported the same and thereby he had purgered himself. It will be seen that in the present complaint, the prosecution did not seek to reopen any of the facts which led to the persecution of the petitioners in the earlier case which resulted in their acquittal on 9th January 1979. The said acquittal in the earlier case, therefore, does not operate as a bar to the prosecution in the present case.

It was next contended by the learned counsel that admittedly Channo was known as Jiwni and in this connection, he invited my attention to the statement of Channo alias Jiwni recorded as PW9 in the present case. That being so, the petitioners stood to gain nothing by altering the name from Channo as mentioned in the record of the Rehabilitation Department to Jiwni as mentioned in the revenue record.

There is no merit in this submission as well. It would have been entirely different matter if the case set up bythe petitioners had been that Channo and Jiwni were, in fact, the same person and her name had been mentioned as Channo in the record of the Rehabilitation Department but the same was mentioned as Jiwni in the revenue record and it was she who had executed the sale deed in their favour. The petitioners instead adopted a short cut, changed the copy Exhibit D1 which is in Urdu from the word `Channo'' to word `Jiwni''. This was rightly held to amount to false evidence and no exception can be taken to the prosecution and ultimate conviction of the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that Shri Rt. P. Gaind in his order under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had failed to mention that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offences which appeared to have been committed in or in relation to the proceedings pending in the civil court.

The contention is altogether devoid of merit. There is no magic in the words used in section 340. It will be an empty formality to use those words and omission to mention those words would not render the order invalid. The matter of substance is that an application under section 340 of the Code Criminal Procedure was made. It was enquired into by the learned Additional District Judge and it was allowed and followed up by filing a complaint in the Court of competent jurisdiction.

Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the accused had been on bail since the admission of revision petition which was filed in July 1985. They had been awarded small sentences. They had earlier been acquitted of the main offence of alleged cheating. Smt. Channo had already been given complete relief with the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners may not be sent to jail.

I find force in this contention. Though technically the petitioners have been found guilty, the fact remains that they had been acquitted for the main charge of putting forward some other lady and obtaining a sale deed. It also cannot be disputed that Smt. Channo has completely succeeded with the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioners. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order imposing the sentence of imprisonment and fine is set aside. Instead. the petitioners are directed to be released on probation. They shall furnish the necessary personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/ each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, within two months of this order undertaking to appear and receive sentence within a period of two years from the execution of the bond and in the meanwhile to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The Criminal revision is disposed of in these terms.

Revision disposed of.