STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALRAJ SINGH TAKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F .I.R. No. 31 of 1994 was registered against Balraj Singh Takhar accused respondent herein under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 120-B IPC under the jurisdiction of P.S. Division No. 5, Jalandhar.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the case was registered on the basis of an application received from Mrs. Geena Gill addressed to the S.S.P. Jalandhar. The complainant claims to be a permanent resident of U.S.A. and she had appointed the accused, her uncle, as general attorney in order to take care of her moveable properties and bank accounts in India. However, Balraj Singh Takhar allegedly indulged in misappropriation of properties and withdrew large sums from her bank accounts for his personal use. Having come to know of such activities of the accused, the complainant cancelled the general power of attorney in November, 1990, which she had executed in the year 1983. Various documents and even cheque book etc. were not returned by him to the complainant. In fact the accused forged a cheque of Rs. 40 lacs from the cheque book, of account No. SB/38 14990 of Punjab and Sind Bank, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar. This fact came to the notice of the complainant after a registered letter was sent by the advocate on behalf of the respondent in relation to the said cheque and threatening to take proceedings under the Criminal law against the complainant. Placed in these circumstances, the complainant wrote a letter/complaint to the S.S.P., Jalandhar as afore- noticed. A case was registered and a police report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Charge under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C. was framed against the accused. The accused-respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) THE appellant State of Punjab filed Criminal Misc. No. 127-MA of 1998 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, which was listed before a Division Bench of this Court for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. Division Bench of this Court declined the leave vide order dated 30.6.1998 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 127-MA of 1998. The Criminal Revision No. 166 of 1998 preferred by the complainant was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.6.1998 observing that in view of the fact that appeal to leave in Criminal Misc. No. 127-MA of 1998 had been declined, the revision deserved to be dismissed.