BIRBAL SINGH BHARMORIA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi in P.C. No. 185 -I/04 rejecting the application of the Petitioner under Sections 227, 239 Code of Criminal Procedure. has been assailed in the revision.

(2.) IT has been stated that as per prosecution story complainant Basant Ram alongwith his sisters Smt. Shanti and Smt. Chhatanki Devi did not execute General Power of Attorney dated 11.3.1996 in favour of Prakash Chand accused, who is son - in -law of Basant Ram, complainant. It has been alleged that Prakash Chand got the fictitious General Power of Attorney prepared and registered in his name and mortgaged the land of the complainant and his sisters with H.P. Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Joginder Nagar for obtaining loan of Rs. 40,000/ -, which was disbursed vide draft dated 14.3.1996 for '.24,000/ - and another draft dated 30.3.1996 for Rs.16,000/ - payable to Prakash Chand. It has been alleged that FIR No. 34 of 2001 dated 28.2. 2001 was got registered by the complainant at Police Station, Joginder Nagar against Prakash Chand. It has been found during investigation that Petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B Indian Penal Code for identifying the complainant and his sisters in the General Power of Attorney which according to the complainant was fraudulently prepared by Prakash Chand main beneficiary of the transaction.

(3.) IT has been alleged that the complainant himself acknowledged the sanction of loan by repaying the amount which indicates that the factum of loan was within the knowledge of the complainant. The Petitioner had no malafide intention, he never conspired in any manner with Prakash Chand to receive any benefit from fraudulent General Power of Attorney prepared by Prakash Chand. The complainant moved an application before the Tehsildar to vacate the charge on land which was mortgaged as security.