TARA CHAND CHAWLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision No. 237/97 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in CR No. 43/94 wherey the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.1.1997 has discharged Inder Singh and Smt. Sudesh, purchasers of the plot for valuable consideration, on the ground that there is no material on the record to show that Inder Singh and Smt. Sudesh had anything to do with the forging of documents and/or trespassing. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his order, finds that the necessary ingredients of intention is missing and, therefore, discharged them of the offence under Sections 448 / 34, Indian Penal Code. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in this case although Balbir Singh is the person, who forged the documents of sale, yet Inder Singh and Smt. Sudesh ought to have not been diligent in dealing with the matter and because they were not diligent, it must be inferred that they were part and parcel of the main accused, who fraudulently wanted to deprive the complainant of his property. From the evidence collected by the prosecution, it is clear that this Balbir Singh forged the documents and that Inder Singh and Smt. Sudesh were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and had no idea that they were being duped.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the State was asked to submit his stand of the case. The learned Counsel states that the ingredients necessary to make out an offence under Sections 448/34, Indian Penal Code are absent in the case of Inder Singh and Smt. Sudesh.

(3.) That being the case, having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the material of the case with their assistance as also upon perusal of the judgment under challenge. I find no infirmity in the judgment under challenge.