RAM KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed by Bhagat Ram ( now deceased) against the respondents herein and one Shri Joginder Pal, Postmaster, under Sections 464, 471, 423 read with Sections 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. His case before the trial court was that he is owner in possession of the premises situated in Khasra No.934. measuring 32 square meters, Mohan Mehatpur Kasbati, Tehsil and District Una. He got installed an electricity meter No.635 in the said premises, which was earlier rented out to the Post & Telegraph Department. When the said premises were vacated, by respondent No.1 Suresh Chand made a false declaration for the change of electricity meter in his name, alleging that he was the owner of the said premises which declaration was attested by the respondent Kewal Krishan, who was the member of the Notified Area Committee. It is alleged that the respondents knew the fact that the said premises were owned and possessed by the complainant, but they had intentionally prepared a false document and on this false representation, the electricity meter was got changed in the name of respondent No.1, which has caused injury to the right, title and interest of the complainant.

(2.) THE preliminary evidence was led. The trial court sent the complaint to the Additional S.P., Una, for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No case was stated to have been made out on inquiry against the respondents, however, finding sufficient grounds to summon the respondents on the basis of the preliminary evidence, the learned trial court vide its order dated 18.5.1996 summoned the respondents under Sections 465, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The pre-charge evidence was led. Complainant examined three witnesses. On considering the pre-charge evidence, respondent Joginder Pal, Post Master, Mehatpur was discharged, whereas, the trial court found a prima- facie case under Section 465, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents. Accordingly, they were charge-sheeted vide order dated 5.9.1998 by the trial court. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have reappraised the evidence on record.