Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amita Mehta vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 September, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116595-DB
CRM-A-1620-2019(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-A-1620-2019(O&M)
Date of Decision:-05.09.2024
Amita Mehta.
......Appellant.
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for respondent nos.3, 4 & 6.
Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos.7 to 9
***
JASJIT SINGH, J.
The present application under Section 378(3) of Cr.PC has been
filed for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated
21.11.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar.
2. The facts of the complaint as stated by the complainant are that
land bearing khasra no 51/11/1 min, 51/12, 51/13, 51/19, 51/20 min, 51/22,
64/2/3, 64/3, 64/4, 64/5, 64/8, 63/1, 63/2, 52/3/2, 52/2, 52/6/1,52/7/1, 52/14,
52/15 and 52/25 was situated in the village Madh Bhilowal tehsil Ajnala
district Amritsar and the land was owned by Sh. Vishnu Mehta, Uma Mehta
husband and mother in law of the applicant/complainant. The jamabandi and
khasra girdawari was also in the name of Surinder Mohan Mehta father in
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116595-DB
CRM-A-1620-2019(O&M) #2#
law of the applicant/ complainant. The respondents/accused Rai Sahib
Mehta filed an appeal for the correction of the khasra girdawari which was
pending in the court of Deputy commissioner Tarn Taran. A civil suit
regarding the land mentioned above was also pending in the court of Sh.
Manoj Kumar Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ajnala, in which, the court had
granted interim stay in favour of the applicant/ complainant party and
against the respondents/ accused Rai Sahib Mehta and his sons. The accused
Rai Sahib Mehta and his wife Usha Mehta, sons Sanjeev Rai Mehta, Rajeev
Rai Mehta and Kanwar Rai Mehta hatched a criminal conspiracy with the
accused Harpreet Singh, Patwari halqa Mudh Bhilowal, accused Bakhshish
Singh, Naib Tehsildar and Chander Shekhar clerk of DC office Amritsar to
change the reveune record qua the above said land without disclosing the
fact that an appeal qua the above said land regarding the correction of khasra
girdawari was pending with the Deputy commissioner Tarn Taran. The
accused Rai Sahib Mehta in connivance with his wife and sons filed an
application with the Deputy Commissioner cum collector Amritsar for
issuing direction to the Halqa patwari Mudh Bhilowal for recording the
wheat crop as sown by them in the above said khasra number in the village
Mudh Bhilowal on 12.01.2009. The accused persons got false and fabricated
reports in their favour without any notice to the complainant party in
connivance with the Patwari. Accused Rai Sahib Mehta kept the said
application for about 9 months in his custody and later on in furtherance of
the criminal conspiracy in connivance with the accused Chander Shekhar
without any official order from the concerned Deputy Commissioner sent
the same of his own by misusing his post in the DC office by signing of his
own and handed over the same to Rai Sahib Mehta. The accused Rai Sahib
Mehta in connivance with the then Halqa patwari, Harpreet Singh entered
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116595-DB
CRM-A-1620-2019(O&M) #3#
rapat no.84 in the rapat roznamcha on 07.11.2009. The accused Rai Sahib
Mehta further filed an application with the Deputy Commissioner Cum
collector Amritsar on 04.02.2010 for implementation of rapat number 84
dated 07.11.2009 and accused Harpreet Singh Patwari in connivance with
Bakhshish Singh Naib Tehsildar, accused Rai Sahib Mehta and other
accused got a rapat no. 182 entered in the revenue record and got changed all
the khasra girdwaris coming in the name of the father in law of the
complainant, in the name of Usha Kumari, Sanjeev Rai Mehta, Karwar Rai
Mehta, Rajeev Rai Mehta without any order from the Deputy Commissioner
Amritsar in this regard. The complainant came to know about the forgery
and fabrication of the revenue record when she visited the Halqa Patwari for
collection of revenue papers on 27.07.2010 and filed an application against
the accused person with the Deputy Commissioner Amritsar and later on
filed an application with Commissioner Jalandhar Division Jalandhar on
18.08.2010 for taking action against the accused person. The application
dated 18.08.2010 bore number 30A/10/3341 dated 18.08.2010. The
respectable Commissioner Jalandhar Division Jalandhar marked an inquiry
in this regard to Addl. Deputy commissioner Amritsar. The Additional
Deputy Commissioner Amritsar had conduced an inquiry into the whole
matter and gave his report bearing number ADC/24/ dated 12.01.2011 by
concluding that the Patwari halqa was not supposed to put any entry in the
roznamcha bearing rapat no. 182 qua the Khasra Girdawari. The
Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar after receipt of the report of
Additional Deputy Commissioner Amritsar had ordered action against
Patwari Harpreet Singh, Naib Tehsildar Bakhshish Singh and accused
Chander Shekhar and also directed the correction of the revenue record as
per the previous entry vide order dated 20.01.2011 bearing number
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116595-DB
CRM-A-1620-2019(O&M) #4#
30A/2011/219. The accused Rai Sahib Mehta and his sons hatched a
criminal conspiracy in connivance with each other to save themselves from
criminal proceedings pending against them in the court of Manoj Kumar,
JMIC Ajnala titled as Vishnu Mehta Vs. Ral Sahib Mehta. Rai Sahib Mehta
and his sons produced forged and fabricated record in the application for
discharge in the above said proceedings in the court to take undue benefit of
the forged and fabricated revenue record in order to save themselves from
the conviction. The matter was reported to the police but due to political
pressure and influence of the respondents/ accused person, the matter was
kept pending and no action was taken. Hence the complainant was left with
no alternative but to file the present complaint. The complainant prayed that
all the accused be summoned, be tried and punished in accordance with the
provisions of law for the offences committed by them.
3. Based on the preliminary evidence, the accused came to be
summoned under Sections 420, 467, 465, 468, 120-B IPC vide order dated
03.12.2014.
4. On conclusion of the Trial, the accused/respondent nos.2 to 9
came to be acquitted by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar
vide judgment dated 21.11.2018.
5. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the
judgment of acquittal is based on conjectures and surmises without proper
appreciation of the evidence on record. The complainant witnesses had
supported the case of the complainant in all material particulars. The
forgery of documents were proved in accordance with law. He, therefore,
contends that that the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and the
application for seeking grant of leave to appeal ought to be allowed.
6. The Counsel for the respondent nos.3, 4, 6 to 9 at the very
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116595-DB
CRM-A-1620-2019(O&M) #5#
outset states that the respondent nos.2 & 5 have passed away during the
pendency of the instant appeal. On merits they contend that the complainant
could not establish her case. In fact the Trial Court had rightly come to the
conclusion that there was no evidence of cheating or forgery of documents.
They, therefore, contend that no fault could be found with the judgment of
acquittal and the present application seeking grant of leave to leave was
liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through
the lower Court record.
8. In the complaint the accused persons have been charged under
sections 420, 465,467, 468 IPC read with section 120-B IPC. The
complainant, to prove the offences was to establish beyond doubt that the
accused hatched a criminal conspiracy with each other and got false and
fabricated reports in their favour and got entered rapat no. 84 in roznamcha
of the revenue record having knowledge that an appeal regarding such
change in khasra girdawri was pending in the court of Deputy Commissioner
Tarn Taran and got implemented rapat no. 84 of the roznamcha and changed
all the Khasra girdawri in the name of accused no. 1 to 5 and committed the
offence of cheating and forgery and forgery for the purpose of cheating.
9. To prove her allegations of cheating and forgery the
complainant was initially and primarily required to prove that an appeal was
pending in the Court of Deputy Commissioner Tarn Taran regarding the
correction of the khasra girdawri and during the pendency of the above
mentioned application before the Deputy Commissioner Taran Taran, the
accused no.1 had moved an application Ex. CWS/A before the Deputy
Commissioner Amritsar for changing the khasra Girdawri regarding the land
in the names of accused no. 1 to 5. Such appeal which was alleged to be
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116595-DB
CRM-A-1620-2019(O&M) #6#
pending before the Deputy Commissioner Taran Taran was not proved on
record by the complainant to establish that during pendency of the appeal the
accused got the khasra Girdawri corrected in their names.
It was only the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Taran
Taran which would have proved the offence of cheating at the hands of the
accused and only from the appeal it could have been determined that all the
accused hatched a criminal conspiracy with each other to commit forgery
and cheating.
Secondly the complainant was also required to establish that a
civil suit was also pending between the parties regarding the khastra
numbers in dispute and in which interim stay had been granted in their
favour by the court of Sh. Manoj Kumar CJJD Ajnala. No date of such order
was mentioned by the complainant in his complaint. Such order of interim
stay passed by the Court of Sh. Manoj Kumar CJJD Ajnala in favour of the
family of the complainant was not placed on the judicial file. However, one
order of the Court of Sh. R.K Beri PCS CJJD Ajnala dated 5-11-07 upon an
application U/O 39 Rule 1, 2 C.P.C was placed on record as Ex. C9 by the
complainant. The order which was exhibited as Ex. C9 pertains only to
khasra number 52//16, 52//14, 52//15 and 52/3/2 and is not regarding all the
khasra numbers as mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. Further a
perusal of the order Ex. C9 showed that injunction against the
respondents/accused was only against forcible dispossession of the
plaintiffs/family of the complainant from the property in dispute. There was
no specific injunction order against the accused that they should not get the
khasra Girdawri corrected from the revenue authorities in their names till the
final decision of the suit. As the interim stay order of the court of Sh. Manoj
Kumar CJJD Ajnala had not been proved by the complainant, so it cannot be
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116595-DB
CRM-A-1620-2019(O&M) #7#
believed that the accused were restrained from getting the khasra girdawari
corrected in their name and the offence of cheating is not made out against
the accused.
10. In regard to the offence of forgery, the complainant alleged that
the accused no. 8 Chander Shekhar in connivance with accused no.1 Rai
Sahib Mehta without any official order from the concerned Deputy
Commissioner sent the application moved by accused no. 1 of his own by
misusing his post in the DC office by signing of his own and handed over
the same to Rai Sahib Mehta. These allegations of the complainant that the
accused no.8 Chander Shekhar did not have any authority to sign on behalf
of the Deputy Commissioner were falsified by the deposition of CW5 in her
further cross examination wherein she stated that for the convenience of
general public sometimes the officer authorizes the clerk to sign on his
behalf in form of " for". Perusal of Ex. D2 which is the letter dated 31- 12-
2010 issued by Deputy Commissioner Amritsar to the Public Information
officer shows that it has been explained in the letter that the signatures which
were appended by the accused no.8 upon the Ex.CW-5/B were appended
upon the oral orders of the concerned officer. Therefore, connivance of
accused no. 2,3,4,5 in the commission of the offence as alleged by the
complainant is not proved by the complainant. Thus the allegations of
forgery by the accused no. I in connivance with accused no. 8 are not proved
against the accused as the signatures which were appended upon Ex. CW5/B
by the accused were appended by him in form of "for" upon the oral orders
of the concerned officer.
11. The accused no. 6 and 7 being public officers had done their
duty by entering the rapat in the roznamcha as per the orders of the Deputy
Commissioner. As, the accused had done their public duty in discharge of
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116595-DB
CRM-A-1620-2019(O&M) #8#
their public functions, so a prior sanction was necessary for prosecuting the
accused no. 6 and 7. But no sanction from the state was taken for the
prosecution of the accused no.6 and 7. No active connivance of accused no.
6 and 7 with the other co-accused could be established by the complainant.
Therefore, the offences against the accused no.6 and 7 were rightly not made
out.
12. As to how an appeal against a judgment of acquittal is to be
dealt with, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kallu @ Masih & Ors. Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 427 has held as under:-
" 8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power
of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised
while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence.
However, one significant difference is that an order of
acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court,
where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence
and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not
reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a
different view is possible. The appellate court will also
bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the
benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it
should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the
trial court."
13. In view of the aforementioned discussion and keeping in view
the law laid down in Kallu @ Masih & Ors. Case (supra), we find no reason
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116595-DB
CRM-A-1620-2019(O&M) #9#
to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. Therefore, the application for
seeking grant of leave to appeal stands dismissed.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) ( SUDHIR SINGH )
JUDGE JUDGE
September 05, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
