HARMINDER SINGH BADESHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is Lambardar of Village Dugri, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and is alleged to have attested a wrong pedigree table on the mutation of inheritance of Prem Chand who had died. The husband of the complainant Kamaljit, namely, Bharat Bhushan had predeceased his father Prem Chand. On the death of the father-in-law of the complainant, namely, Prem Chand, a pedigree table was prepared on Mutation No.43032 of Village Peeru Banda. In the said mutation, the pedigree table of Prem Chand (deceased) was prepared in which Bharat Bhushan is shown as the deceased son of Prem Chand. However, the other heirs of Bharat Bhushan, who has died and are entitled to succeed to the estate of Prem Chand are not mentioned. It is submitted that the complainant being the widow of a predeceased son (Bharat Bhushan) of the deceased Prem Chand would be entitled to share in the estate of Prem Chand. Besides, her two children also have shares in the estate of Prem Chand. Despite the said position, the petitioner as Lambardar attested false pedigree table.

(3.) The stand of the petitioner is that he attested the pedigree table on the mutation with respect to the estate of Prem Chand father of Bharat Bhushan on the asking of the Patwari Chamkaur Singh. The Patwari has been exonerated by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. The petitioner is not involved in any other case earlier. It may be noticed that on the basis of mutation that was done the persons in whose favour the mutation was sanctioned had sold the land of Prem Chand for a consideration of '35 Lacs.