JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 154-MA of 2007 seeking special leave to appeal against the order of discharge of respondents No. 2 to 5 Bachittar Singh, Major Singh, Buta Singh and Baldev Singh of charge under Section 467 IPC while convicting Bachittar Singh, Buta Singh and Baldev Singh under Sections 465/471/34 IPC and Criminal Misc. No. 176-MA of 2007 seeking special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of respondent No. 2 Major Singh.
2. Complainant Veerpal Kaur jointly owned land with Bachiittar Singh, accused. Bachhittar Singh accused in connivance with other accused prepared agreement dated 16.6.1989 regarding partition of the property and filed a suit on 23.11.1991 and obtained an injunction on the basis of the forged agreement dated 16.6.1989. The complainant brought the matter to this Court and vide order dated 14.3.1992, this Court held the agreement to be forged.
3. The complainant appeared as PW-3. Her husband Sohan Singh appeared as PW-4 and Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting Expert appeared as PW-1. The accused denied the allegations and claimed the document to be genuine. Defence evidence was also led.
4. The trial Court convicted the accused Bachittar Singh, his son Major Singh, Buta Singh and Baldev Singh under Sections 465/471/34 IPC. It was, however, held that charge under Section 467 IPC was not made out. The appellate Court held that the document was forged and it could be inferred that Bachittar Singh, Baldev Singh and Buta Singh had prepared the forged document. Major Singh, who was alleged only to have purchased stamp paper, could not be held to have forged the document. He had not signed the document in any manner. Major Singh was, thus, acquitted of the charge under Section 465 IPC. On appeal, Major Singh was completely acquitted. Appeal of the complainant against the view of the trial Court that Section 467 IPC was not attracted, was dismissed.
5. The complainant, thus, challenges the view of the Courts below that Section 467 IPC was not attracted as well as the view of the appellate Court that Major Singh had not played any role in forgery and his mere purchasing of stamp papers did not fasten him with the liability of committing any offence.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant.
7. The view of the Courts below is that the documents forged by the accused did not constitute valuable property or any other document specified under Section 467 IPC. It was held that in absence of registration, the document was not admissible in evidence and the document did not create any right or title in the property. The trial Court observed:
Whether this document has ever been given effect in the revenue record to create right? No, so this document is not valuable security and it is waste paper and on the basis of this document, rights of a party cannot be decided as this document cannot be considered or admitted for declaring right of any party, so the offence Under Section 465 IPC is made out as the offence Under Section 465 IPC is less offence than Under Section 467 IPC so there is no need to amend the charge. So, these arguments of the ld. counsel for the accused has merit.
8. As regards Major Singh, the appellate Court observed as under:
The complainant has not been able to prove that the accused Major Singh played any role after the purchasing of the stamp paper, especially in preparing the document Ex.C-3. Applying ratio of Malkiat Singh’s case (Supra) on the facts of this case, mere purchasing of the stamp papers by the accused Major Singh is totally harmless to the complainant Veerpal Kaur as the said stamp papers has been purchased in the name of Bachittar Singh and not in the name of Veerpal Kaur. So, the prosecution has not proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts that the accused Major Singh played any role in preparing the false document Ex.C-3. So, in this view of the matter, it can be safely said that the document in question has been prepared by the appellant/accused Bachittar Singh, Baldev Singh and Buta Singh and the prosecution has not been able to prove any role of the accused Major Singh in preparing this false document. Thus, accused Major Singh is acquitted of the charge under Section 465 of IPC, giving him the benefit of doubt. Now regarding the offence under Section 471 of IPC. As the accused Bachhittar Singh, Buta Singh and Baldev Singh have used false document in the civil suit titled as Bachittar Singh v. Veerpal Kaur knowing fully well that the said document was a false one and not a genuine one, but they used the said document before the Court by showing it to be genuine document. So, they have also committed an offence under Section 471 of IPC. As regards the accused Major Singh, the prosecution has not been able to prove that he played any role even in using this document anywhere.
9. Thus, while accused Bachittar Singh, Baldev Singh and Buta Singh stand convicted and sentenced, Major Singh has been acquitted and conviction of the accused is under Sections 465/471/34 IPC and not under Section 467 IPC.
10. The view taken by the appellate Court in not holding the accused guilty under Section 467 IPC and in acquitting Major Singh cannot be held to be illegal or perverse.
11. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. (Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat ).
12. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal.
13. The petitions are dismissed.
