ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dtd. 12/11/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin (Revisional Court) vide which the order dtd. 22/3/2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Bank of India through its Senior Manager filed a written application before the police asserting that the petitioner/accused availed cash credit limit of ?6,00,000/- being the proprietor of M/s Raja General Store. He executed an agreement of hypothecation and an equitable mortgage of his share as collateral security. He agreed not to sell, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise part with the possession of the hypothecated and mortgaged property till the repayment of the loan, The accused transferred the property in violation of the agreement executed by him. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police found that the accused had taken a loan from the Bank of India on 31/7/2014, and sold the shop and the house to Shehnaz Hussain. The accused had obtained ?58,00,000/- from Prem Chand and Jitender and did not execute any sale deed in their favour. The accused had taken a loan of ?3 lacs on 6/10/2001 and ? 3 lacs on 16/8/2002 against his property bearing Khasra No. 390/362 and the shops and the houses located on it. He had entered into an agreement with Prem Chand and Jitender Kumar to sell the property for ? 60 lacs. He had received ?28 lacs for the shop and the house. The accused was to receive the remaining amount of ? 32 lacs after vacating the shop and the house but the accused failed to do so; hence, the amount of ?32 lacs was not paid to him. FIR No.217 of 2009 was registered against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 420 IPC. The accused got the sale deed registered in favour of Shehnaz Hussain on 28/10/2009 for ? 13 lacs. The police seized the documents and recorded the statements of witnesses. The disputed documents and the specimen signatures of the accused were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jungas and as per the report, the person who wrote the specimen and admitted handwriting also wrote the disputed documents. The ingredients of Sec. 420 IPC were duly satisfied. Hence, the challan was filed before the Court.

(3.) The learned Trial Court summoned the accused and framed the charges against him for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 420 and 421 of IPC.