LAWS(HPH)-2013-1-99

PARKASH CHAND Vs. SATISH SAROTRI AND ORS

Decided On January 10, 2013
PARKASH CHAND Appellant
V/S
SATISH SAROTRI AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the complainant's appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, assailing the judgment dated 12.7.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala in Cr.R.B.T. Case No. 51-II/04/02, titled as Parkash Chand versus Satish Sarotri and another. In terms of the said judgment, both the accused, the respondents herein stands acquitted.

(2.) On 13.6.2002 the present appellant Sh. Parkash Chand filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, Dharamshala against the private respondents. Allegedly Sh. Satish Salotra (accused No.1) persuaded the complainant and managed to get power of attorney executed in his favour. In terms thereof land owned by the complainant situated in village Sidhpur, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. could be sold. The complainant executed power of attorney (Ext. CW-1/A) with respect to khasra numbers 963, 964, 971, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 992 and 959. Even though sale deed dated 22.11.2001 (Ext. CW-1/D) was executed in favour of Sh. Yog Raj (accused No. 2) but the complainant did not receive the sale proceeds which were actually mis-appropriated by the accused No.1. Also subsequently complainant learnt that both the accused persons had in fact carried out interpolation in the general power of attorney (Ext. CW-1/A) on the basis of which his land comprising khasra No. 980 was also sold off. Neither in the original power of attorney there was any mention of khasra No. 980 nor had the complainant intended to sell the same. Allegedly after registration of the document, interpolation was carried out and over khasra No. 971 No. 980 was written.

(3.) Based on the statement of the complainant, summons were issued. Both the accused persons were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally accused No. 1 was also charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.