CRR No.993 of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.993 of 2000
Date of Decision: 24th August, 2009
Gurdev Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present: Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
**
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This revision is directed against the judgment dated 26.4.2000
passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby he
dismissed the appeal filed by Gurdev Singh accused against the judgment/
order of sentence dated 15.10.1998 rendered by the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Sangrur vide which he convicted the aforesaid
accused under Section 182 of IPC and released him on probation.
The facts in brief are that Gurdev Singh accused is Sarpanch of
Gram Panchayat. He presented an application that the persons namely
Gurmit Singh and others alongwith some other outsider have forcibly taken
CRR No.993 of 2000 2
possession of the Shamlat Land belonging to the Panchayat. A case under
Sections 447/188/506/148 read with Section 149 of IPC was registered
against the said persons. During investigation, it was found that the disputed
land was surplus of Balad Kalan and was allotted to Ajmer Singh and
Bhagel Singh by Additional Director, Consolidation on 30.3.1983.
Mutation was also sanctioned in their favour. An appeal was preferred
against the said order, but the same was dismissed. An appeal was filed in
the Hon’ble High Court and then to Hon’ble Supreme Court, which were
also met failure. Warrants of possession were issued by the Assistant
Collector and the allottees were put in possession during the execution of
the said warrants. The case was cancelled. The accused Gurdev Singh was
proceeded against under Section 182 of IPC. The notice was served upon
him, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating circumstances
appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded false
implication. He tendered Ex.D1 report of SHO dated 5.7.1995. After
hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned
defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial
court convicted the accused and released him on probation of good conduct
as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal,
which was dismissed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Being
undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the courts
below, he has preferred this revision.
CRR No.993 of 2000 3
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides
perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner being a public servant sanction under Section 197 of Cr.PC was
required to prosecute him and in the absence of the same, the learned trial
Magistrate was not justified in taking the cognizance. He further puts that
even otherwise, the prosecution has not been launched by a competent
person. This apart, the complaint was required to be lodged. In these
premises, this petition is liable to be accepted.
As against this, the learned State counsel maintained that the
judgments recorded by both the courts below being well reasoned call for no
interference.
I have well considered the rival contentions. It is worth
pointing out here that the scope of interference in the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction is limited. In re: Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana
1994(2) Recent Criminal Report 130 also relied upon by the learned
Sessions Judge, a false case was addressed to Deputy Commissioner and
copy was endorsed to the Police. No direction was made by the Deputy
Commissioner and investigation was taken by the SHO. The complaint was
found to be false and it was held that SHO was competent to file Calendra
under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code. It is also pertinent to point out here
that the petitioner has admitted all incriminatory circumstances appearing
against him in his statutory statement recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C.. He had been perusing the matter upto the Apex Court. When the
CRR No.993 of 2000 4
case was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he filed a false complaint.
He had thus, knowledge of all the proceedings before this Court as well as
the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In view of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
24th August, 2009 (HARBANS LAL) gsv JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No.