Criminal Revision No. 2235 of 2009 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No. 2235 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 2.9.2009
Jeeta Ram ..... Petitioner
vs
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jarnail Singh Saneta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, on 20.7.2009, whereby she dismissed
the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment and order passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, on 5.5.2008.
The brief facts of the case as are available on record are that the
complaint filed by Pala Ram was sent to Police Station City Karnal for
investigation. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner was owner in
possession of land measuring 3 biswas being 3/92 share of land measuring 4B-12B
comprised in khewat no. 2027, khatauni no. 37004, khasra no. 7986 (4-12),
situated near Sugar Mill, outside Municipal Limits, Karnal. He executed an
agreement to sell on 6.4.1999 of the aforesaid land in favour of the complainant
for sale consideration of Rs. 18,000/- which was paid to him at the time of
execution of agreement. The complainant requested many times to the petitioner
for execution of sale-deed but he did not do so. Later on the complainant learnt
that the petitioner was not the owner of the land in question rather the true owner
of the land was Surta who had already sold the same to Dharam Pal and Sat
Parkash vide registered sale-deed dated 18.1.1972. The mutation had already been
sanctioned in their favour. Finding prima facie case against the petitioner, he was
charge-sheeted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
Considering the evidence brought on record the learned trial Court
vide judgment dated 5.5.2008, convicted the petitioner under Section 420 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of
Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo
Criminal Revision No. 2235 of 2009 (2)
simple imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved, against the order passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, the petitioner filed appeal
which was also dismissed. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant
revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the
complainant had played fraud with the petitioner and got executed agreement to
sell dated 6.4.1999 as he had executed agreement to sell dated 28.1.1999 in favour
of the complainant for some other land.
The agreement to sell dated 6.4.1999, Ex. P1, was duly proved by
Pala Ram and Rajbir Singh, the attesting witnesses. It has also been proved beyond
doubt that the petitioner was not the owner of the land. Rather it was owned and
possessed by Dharam Pal and Sat Parkash who had purchased the same from Surta
vide registered sale-deed dated 18.1.1972. As the petitioner was not the owner of
the land in question, he had dishonestly deceived the complainant and played fraud
with him, the trial court has rightly convicted him under Section 420 IPC. The
finding recorded by the courts below cannot be faulted with.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there is delay of 16 months in filing the complaint also has no force as this issue
had not been raised by the petitioner before the courts below. Moreover, the
agreement to sell was executed on 6.4.1999 and the learned court below has
referred the complaint for investigation to the police vide order dated 14.10.1999
and the FIR No. 888 was registered on 26.10.1999. In view of this, it cannot be
said that there is delay in the lodging of complaint.
In view of the above, it cannot be said that the courts below had gone
wrong in convicting the petitioner. Accordingly, findings of the courts below are
upheld and the revision petition is dismissed being without merit.
2.9.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge