PRITAM GIR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioner Pritam Gir, Janak Raj, Parkash Chand and Amar Nath(deceased)(non petitioners), were tried for the offences under Section 406, 120-B IPC and were sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for 10 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/-. The appeal preferred by Parkash Chand, Janak Raj has been accepted by the appellate court. Since, Amar Nath expired during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, his appeal stood abated. As regards Pritam Gir's appeal, he was acquitted under Section 120-B IPC and was convicted under Section 406 IPC.

(2.) There is a Samadh in village Kulwano. The land measuring 55 Kanals 8 marlas is owned by the Samadh. Pritam Gir was recorded as Mohitmim(who looks after the affairs of the Samadh). On 8.07.1988, all the four accused as referred to above entered into conspiracy pursuant to which Pritam Gir executed a sale deed of the entire land belonging to Samadh in favour of Parkash Chand for a consideration of Rs. 70,000/-. Sale deed was executed and registered which was attested by Janak Raj Sarpanch of the Village as a marginal witness as well as Amar Nath since deceased. Amar Nath and Parkash Chand(vendee) are the real brothers whereas Janak Raj attesting witness is the son of Parkash Chand. Thus, finding that Pritam Gir had committed breach of trust and misappropriated the property belonging to Samadh in connivance with and conspiracy of the other accused, a case under Section 420/120-B IPC was registered against them and was then investigated.

(3.) Ultimately all the four accused were challaned, charges were framed against them, under Section 406, 120-B IPC. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined PW-1 Darshan Singh, PW-2 Bhagwan Dass, PW-3 Hardarshan Singh, PW-4 Madan Lal, PW-5 Rattan Lal, PW-6 Ram Singh, PW-7 Mehudin, PW-8 Amolak Ram and PW-9 Kirpal Singh. In their statements, recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, they admitted all the facts including the execution of the sale deed by Pritam Gir in favour of Parkash Chand. Janak Raj and Amar Nath admittedly, had attested the Criminal Revision No.544 of 1996 3 sale deeds as witnesses. However, they denied that they entered into any criminal conspiracy. The accused Pritam Gir took the plea that property was under mortgage with Nanna Ram and Ram Saran for the last 25 years. Panchayat had got a compromise effected and asked Pritam Gir to pay Rs. 85,000/- to Nanna Ram and hence, in order to get the property redeemed, he sold the same to Parkash Chand and received a sum of Rs. 70,000/- and after adding more money from his pocket, paid it to Nanna Ram. He has proved the compromise and receipt signed by Nanna Ram. In this regard, by way of proving the documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, similar pleas were also raised by the other accused. On scrutiny, the learned trial court convicted all the accused and sentenced them accordingly. Amar Nath had died during the pendency of appeal. Parkash Chand and Janak Raj were acquitted by the appellate court. As such, I have left only with the appeal preferred by Pritam Gir.