PARDHUMAN SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CRR -68 -2015, titled 'Pardhuman Singh v. State of Punjab' and CRR -455 -2015, titled 'Hussan Lal v. State of Punjab', as common questions of fact, law are involved in both the revisions and both arise from the same FIR.

(2.) THESE revisions have been preferred by petitioners -Pardhuman Singh and Hussan Lal, respectively, against judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby appeals filed by the above named petitioners have been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar have been upheld whereby each of them has been sentenced as under:

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are to the effect that one Kulwinder Singh son of Parsoon Singh, general attorney (vide registered attorney No. 9092/4 dated 11.2.1999) of Jagdish Kaur, sold 2 kanals 8 marlas of land to Gurmail Singh son of Kartar Singh pertaining to khasra numbers 37/2 (2 -0), 20(6 -9), 21(3 -2), 18/2(2 -15), 19/2(2 -2), 22/1(0 -18), 314(8 -0), 315(8 -0), 316(8 -0), 330(8 -0), 331(8 -0), 332(8 -0), 668(8 -0), 669(8 -0), 672(8 -00, 673(8 -0), 676(7 -8), 968/1(4 -9), 965/1(4 -9), 964/2(1 -10), from the total land measuring 115 kanals 2 marlas vide registered sale deed dated 18.2.1999 and the mutation No. 1381 was sanctioned in favour of Gurmail Singh on 24.2.1999. Gurmail Singh got physical possession on the same day (i.e. the date of registration of sale deed) in the presence of Sagar Singh son of Piara Singh. Thereafter, another sale deed was executed by Jagdish Kaur wife of Sagar Singh in favour of Hussan Lal son of Pritam Dass, resident of village Kot Khurd, Tehsil and District Jalandhar on 31.3.1999 and that sale deed was executed for 10 marlas of land, out of khasra number 18/2(2 -15) and 19/2(2 -2) shown in jamabandi for the year 1993 -94. Thereafter, Hussan Lal in connivance and in criminal conspiracy with Parduman Singh Patwari of village Kot Khurd and Satwinderjit Pal, concerned Kanungo and other accomplices, made additions of some more khasra numbers in addition to khasra number 18/2 and 19/2 in the original sale deed in his possession for the purpose of entering the mutation in the revenue record, whereas in the copy of sale deed, which was in the custody of Registrar, Registration, Jalandhar, only two khasra numbers i.e. 18/2 and 19/2 were written. Thereafter, the sale deed was put up before the Patwari Pardhuman Singh for sanctioning of mutation and he made entries in the revenue record for sanctioning of mutation in favour of Hussan Lal mentioning additional khasra numbers of the joint land as stated above. Accordingly, mutation No. 1386 was sanctioned in favour of Hussan Lal on 27.04.1999. Thereafter, when this discrepancy was pointed out by the complainant, the accused in order to save their skin and to justify their actions connived to amend the sale deed by adding above said additional khsara numbers in the sale deed vide amended sale deed i.e. Tatima registry dated 13.07.1999. The complainant Gurmail Singh after getting a certified copy of sale deed dated 31.03.1999 moved application before the Deputy Commissioner, upon which an inquiry was got conducted through Smt. Sarojini Gautam Sharda, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jalandhar, who recommended action against Jagdish Kaur, Hussan Lal, Patwari Pardhuman Singh, Girdawar Kanungo Satinderjit Pal and Circle Revenue Office Rajiv Verma for conniving with each other for sanctioning the mutation with added khasra numbers. On the basis of said report, FIR was registered.