CHANAN RAM Vs. BOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby while reversing the order of the trial Court against the petitioners and the co -accused, he has sent the case back for trial on merits.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the petition are that Bool Chand complainant had filed a complaint under Sections 420/468 read with Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code against Bindu Raj, Surjit Singh (both have since expired during the pendency of the case) and the present petitioners Chanan Ram and Dilbag. Surjit Singh aforesaid had been inducted as a tenant by the complainant in Shop No. 1689, situated near the patrol -pump, Naraingarh. The said shop was constructed by the complainant over a plot which he had taken on perpetual lease from Mehant Ram Charan Dass vide registered lease deed dated 5.4.1983. After his induction in the said shop as tenant, he started paying rent to the complainant, but after some time he became dishonest and he, along with his co -accused, got executed a false.document of lease on 15.6.1977 by accused Bindu Raj in his favour and the said lease was signed by the present petitioners as witnesses. The complainant further alleged that the forged lease had been produced in a civil dispute between Surjit Singh and Bool Chand in the year 1984 and it was at that time that the complainant got to know about its execution. The complainant further alleged that when the police did not like any action against the petitioners, he filed a complaint before the Ilaqa Magistrate. The trial court asked the complaint to adduce his preliminary evidence and which was so done in the shape of the complainant himself and PW -2 Kirpal Singh, Alhmad of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala who also produced the file of the Civil litigation in Bool Chand v. Surjit Singh and others and the various lease deeds were also brought on record. The trial court after considering the evidence of the complainant was, prima facie, of the opinion that the accused were liable to be summoned and vide order dated 18th February, 1988 directed to this effect. After the appearance of the accused the pre -charge evidence was led by the complainant and after examining the same, the trial court came to the conclusion that as the complaint was a belated one and as no handwriting expert had been examined by the complainant to prove the signatures of Bindu Raj on the lease deed allegedly executed by him in favour of Surjit Singh, a prima facie case was to made out against the accused and they were liable to be discharged.

(3.) THE complainant aggrieved by this order filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, who has reversed the finding of the trial court and has ordered that the prosecution of the accused should continue. Hence this petition: