Sukhwinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009

Criminal Revision No.801 of 2002 (O&M)          1

       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                           Criminal Revision No.801 of 2002 (O&M)
                           Date of decision: 13.01.2009


Sukhwinder Singh and others

                                                       ......Petitioners

                           Versus



State of Punjab

                                                     .......Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:     Mr. P.S.Khurana, Advocate,
             for the petitioners.

             Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

                    ****


SABINA, J.

The petitioners were convicted for an offence under

Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) and were

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year besides a

fine of Rs.200/- each and they were also convicted for an offence

under Section 467 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two years besides a fine of Rs.300/- each vide

judgment and order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate, Ist Class, Abohar. Aggrieved by the same, the
Criminal Revision No.801 of 2002 (O&M) 2

petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide

judgment dated 17.4.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Ferozepur. Hence, the present revision petition.

Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in

para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:-

“Brief facts of the case of the complainant Sohan Singh

against the accused are that accused Nos.1 to 3 are real

brothers and accused No.4 is father of accused No.1 to 3

are real brothers and accused No.4 is father of accused

No.1 to 3. Land measuring 33 kanals 2 marlas as

mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint and situated in

village Dalmir Khera was the ownership of Rabel Singh

which was received by Sohan Singh from his father

Wassan Singh by inheritance. Rabel Singh died

issueless and wifeless on 23.4.1980. Complainant and

Sewa Singh were the heirs and Sewa Singh has also died

about four years back. Rabel Singh never executed any

will in favour of accused No.1 to 3. A will dated

20.12.1978 was got executed by accused No.4 with the

connivance of attesting witness accused No.5 from the

petition writer with conspiracy. They got the thumb

impression of some other person by misrepresentation.

This has been done in order to cause wrongful loss to

complainant and his brother Sewa Singh and wrongful
Criminal Revision No.801 of 2002 (O&M) 3

gain to accused No.1 to 3. The accused also got entered

a mutation No.1636 in their favour from the patwari halqa.

In the case of mutation, Satwant Puri handwriting and

finger expert has given his report about the forged will

dated 20.12.1978 on 10.12.1985. The thumb impression

of Ravel Singh on a mortgage deed dated 2.3.1967 were

compared with thumb impressions of Rabel Singh on the

will. A.C.IInd Grade Abohar admitted the will to be

genuine and refused to take action. The complainant

went to the police station but in spite of assurance, no

action has been taken. Hence the present complaint.”

During the course of arguments, Learned counsel for the

petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were minors at the time

of alleged occurrence. Now during the pendency of the revision

petition, parties have arrived at a compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged

the conviction of the petitioners under Section 471 IPC but has

prayed that the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the Courts

below be reduced to as already undergone by them. He has further

submitted that the sentence of fine as ordered by the Courts below

has already been deposited by the petitioners. The petitioners are

not previous convicts.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties as well as facts and circumstances of the
Criminal Revision No.801 of 2002 (O&M) 4

present case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the

sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to as already

undergone by the petitioners.

Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners as ordered

by the Courts below is maintained. However, the sentence of

imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to as already undergone

by them.

The present revision petition stands disposed of.

(SABINA)
JUDGE
January 16, 2009
anita