State of Punjab vs Joginder Singh

S.S. Grewal, J.

Joginder Singh respondent was convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one month whereas his other two coaccused namely Davinder Singh and Ajit Singh were acquitted vide order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar dated 7th of July, 1980. On appeal filed by Joginder Singh his conviction and sentence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside vide order of Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 17th of November, 1981. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal of Joginder Singh, the State has filed the present appeal.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case as emerge from First Information Report registered on the basis of the letter from the District Magistrate, Amritsar addressed to the Senior, Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, are that Gurdwara Sri Singh Sabha Gobindgarh, applied to the Punjab Government (Rehabilitation) Department for purchase of plot No. 161 bearing Khasra Nos. 136 to 139 situated in Gali No. 6, Nawan Kot. Amritsar by private negotiation. Reference from the Deputy Secretary Punjab Government Administration Department dated 8. 11.1976 was received by Tehsildar (Sales) Amritsar for supply of documents and other information and the latter deputed Chuni Lal Patwari (Urban) to collect the necessary information from the concerned Revenue Patwari, who supplied the information that sale deed in favour of aforesaid Joginder Singh for a consideration of Rs. 7175/ has been forged. Thereafter the Revenue Patwari concerned produced attested copy of the forged sale deed and attested affidavit of Joginder Singh. The said Patwari also supplied the information that mutation No. 6517 was entered by him on 1. 1.1.76 on the basis of the aforesaid documents produced by Joginder Singh. From the record of the Tehsildar (Sales) it transpired that the land in dispute had not actually been sold to Joginder Singh and the said land was evacuee property. On this basis, according to the District Magistrate, Joginder Singh had forged the documents for showing that the said land had been purchased by him on 13.1.80 and case was registered. After completion of the investigation and taking into possession the relevant documents, Joginder Singh and his other two coaccused were challaned and tried. Joginder Singh alone was convicted by the trial Magistrate and on appeal, he was acquitted as indicated above.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of Joginder Singh respondent, it was mainly urged that on the basis of the evidence produced in this case, the trial Court hold that it had not been proved that Joginder Singh had committed forgery and that the trial Magistrate erred in holding that Joginder Singh had the requisite knowledge, or, had reason to believe that alleged sale certificate or the affidavit furnished by him for getting the mutation entered were forged or that the some were fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine documents by him (i. e. Joginder Singh respondent) in this case.

The argument is devoid of any merit. On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Magistrate held that the prosecution has only been able to prove that safe certificate Exhibit PW6/A and agreement Exhibit PW8/A are forged documents and that Khasra Nos. in dispute belonged to Custodian and are the property of Rehabilitation Department, and, that the same has not been sold to any individual. Phuman Singh, who was posted as Tehsildar (Sales). Amritsar, while appearing as PW 6 deposed that the; sale certificate Exhibit PW6/A does not bear his signatures and his signatures appearing on the same are forged one. The alleged agreement for sale dated 23.8.75 Exhibit PW8/A set up by Joginder Singh respondent does, indicate that the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, had agreed to sell the property in dispute to Joginder Singh. Shri S. D. Khanna, who was the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar on the date of the execution of the aforesaid agreement for sale, while appearing as PW8 had categarically stated that the said agreement for sale does not bear his signatures As per testimony of Shri Bhupinder Singh, Deputy Director Local Government Amritsar, PW9 affidavit Exhibit PW9/1 filed by Joginder Singh (accused) bears the signatures of Joginder Singh and the latter had signed in his presence and the said witness had attested the same on the identification of Shri Kahniya Lal, Advocate. A bare perusal of affidavit Exhibit PW/l and agreement for sale Exhibit PW8/A shows that the signatures of Joginder Singh on both documents are in the hand of one and the same person. Affidavit Exhibit PW9/1 of Joginder Singh also reveals that Joginder Singh accused had claimed property in dispute bearing Khasra No.135 to 138 as his own, even though there is abundant evidence on the record to show that the property in dispute which is evacuee property had neither been allotted nor, sold in auction to Joginder Singh accused, or, to any other individual. To the naked eye the signatures on the sale certificate Exhibit PW6/A and agreement for salt Exhibit PW8/A appear to be that of Joginder Singh. Even if it is held that the alleged agreement for sale Exhibit PW8/A does not bear the signatures of Joginder Singh, then the aforesaid forged documents and the sale certificate Exhibit PW6/A have been utilised by Joginder Singh in getting the land mutated in his name knowing fully well at that time that the same were forged documents

The evidence produced on behalf of Joginder Singh that he had been paying instalments of rent in respect of the landindispute through Postal JUDGMENTs has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. The evidence produced on behalf of the defence in this regard would not be sufficient to prove that Joginder Singh accused had purchased the propertyindispute from the Rehabilitation Department. The sale certificate Exhibit PW6/A agreement for sale Exhibit PW8/A are forged documents, whereas, the affidavit of Joginder Singh accused Exhibit PW9/1 to the effect that he is owner of the propertyindispute too is a false document to the knowledge of Joginder Singh. The prosecution has thus been able to bring home charge under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code against Joginder Singh accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has gravely erred in not relying upon the material evidence referred to above and also committed error in holding merely on the basis of evidence concerning payment of instalments through Postal JUDGMENTs that is was not known to Joginder Singh (accused) that the sale certificate issued in his favour was forged.

For the foregoing reasons, the order of acquittal of Joginder Singh under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code passed by Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 17.11.1981 is set aside and his conviction under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is maintained. Taking into consideration the nature of the offence, the fact that Joginder Singh is stated to be 70 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence, his antecedents and family background, in our view it is not a fit cast to give benefit of Probation of Offenders'' Act, 1958 to the said convict. However, in view of the fact that the respondent has undergone agony of trial for 21/2 years in the trial Court and after his acquittal by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar, appeal against acquittal remained pending. In this Court for considerable period the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Magistrate, is reduced from one year R. I. to six months R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 200/ imposed by the trial Magistrate or sentence of one month in lieu thereof is, however, maintained this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.