DARSHAN SINGH Vs. RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner along with co-accused Sardool Singh, was tried for committing the offence punishable under Section 167 read with Section 34 IPC. During the proceedings before the trial Court, accused-Sardool Singh, died and as such the proceedings against him stood abated. Vide judgment and order dated 5.11.2011, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, held the petitioner guilty under Section 167 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months.

(2.) Aggrieved there-against, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. Vide judgment dated 04.04.2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) The prosecution in the present case was set in motion on a complaint filed by complainant-Raj Singh, with the allegations that the petitioner while working as Halqa Patwari, Kakhwanwali, had conspired with Sardool Singh and changed the entries in the revenue record as regards the land measuring 116 kanal 12 marla comprised in Musteel No. 153, Killa No. 11/1(2-2), Musteel No. 154 Killa No. 4/3(3-16), 6 (7-4), 9(8- 0),10(7-12), 12(7-7), 13(7-7), 14(7-7), 15(7-6), 17/2(3-12), 18(8- 0), Musteel No. 131 Killa No. 21 (7-19), Musteel No. 154 Killa No. 1(7-12), 2(8-0), 3/2(0-13), 7(7-19), 8(8-0), 11(6-16), situated in village Kakhanwali. In Khasra No. 5 in the Jamabandi, Sardool Singh was shown as son of Hakam Singh in the relevant column, which came within the purview of self cultivation. The said entry was against the facts and the law. Hakam Singh in family partition distributed the land measuring 116 kanal 12 marla in favour of Lakhwinder Singh, Avtar Singh, complainant- Raj Singh and accused - Sardool Singh with specific khasra numbers. Physical possession of the land was also delivered by Hakam Singh to his sons and it was agreed by Hakam Singh that he would also get the mutation sanctioned of change of ownership. However, on Hakam Singh 's having failed to do so, Lakhwinder Singh, Avtar Singh and Raj Singh filed a suit against Hakam Singh for declaration regarding the land measuring 86 kanal 13 marla of specific khasra number wherein Hakam Singh had appeared and filed written statement. The said suit was decreed in favour of the complainant Raj Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Avtar Singh and they were declared as owners in possession of the land measuring 86 kanal 13 marla and mutation was also sanctioned in their favour. However, the accused in order to cause wrongful loss to Raj Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Avtar Singh and in order to extend benefit to Sardool Singh, illegally made an entry in the revenue record without any order of the competent authority and forged the entries by erasing and hence the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/34 IPC. When the said fact came to the notice of the complainant, he apprised his other brothers about it and thereafter, they approached accused-Darshan Singh for correction in the entries, which he assured to so do upon having been paid the money.