STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JOGINDER Singh respondent was convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one month whereas his other two co-accused namely Davinder Singh and Ajit Singh were acquitted vide order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar dated 7th of July, 1980. On appeal filed by Joginder Singh his conviction and sentence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside vide order of Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 17th of November, 1981. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal of Joginder Singh, the State has filed the present appeal.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case as emerge from First Information Report registered on the basis of the letter from the District Magistrate, Amritsar addressed to the Senior, Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, are that Gurdwara Sri Singh Sabha Gobindgarh, applied to the Punjab Government (Rehabilitation) Department for purchase of plot No. 161 bearing Khasra Nos. 136 to 139 situated in Gali No. 6, Nawan Kot. Amritsar by private negotiation. Reference from the Deputy Secretary Punjab Government Administration Department dated 8. 11.1976 was received by Tehsildar (Sales) Amritsar for supply of documents and other information and the latter deputed Chuni Lal Patwari (Urban) to collect the necessary information from the concerned Revenue Patwari, who supplied the information that sale deed in favour of aforesaid Joginder Singh for a consideration of Rs. 7175/- has been forged. Thereafter the Revenue Patwari concerned produced attested copy of the forged sale deed and attested affidavit of Joginder Singh. The said Patwari also supplied the information that mutation No. 6517 was entered by him on 1. 1.1.76 on the basis of the aforesaid documents produced by Joginder Singh. From the record of the Tehsildar (Sales) it transpired that the land in dispute had not actually been sold to Joginder Singh and the said land was evacuee property. On this basis, according to the District Magistrate, Joginder Singh had forged the documents for showing that the said land had been purchased by him on 13.1.80 and case was registered. After completion of the investigation and taking into possession the relevant documents, Joginder Singh and his other two co-accused were challaned and tried. Joginder Singh alone was convicted by the trial Magistrate and on appeal, he was acquitted as indicated above.

(3.) ON behalf of Joginder Singh respondent, it was mainly urged that on the basis of the evidence produced in this case, the trial Court hold that it had not been proved that Joginder Singh had committed forgery and that the trial Magistrate erred in holding that Joginder Singh had the requisite knowledge, or, had reason to believe that alleged sale certificate or the affidavit furnished by him for getting the mutation entered were forged or that the some were fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine documents by him (i. e. Joginder Singh respondent) in this case.