Ranveer Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3473 UK

                                Reserved
  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              Criminal Revision No. 777 of 2019


Ranveer Singh                                        ...Revisionist

                                  Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                ...Respondent

Present:-
              Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sadaf
              Gaur, Advocate for the revisionist.
              Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. for the State.

                                 JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

following:-

(1) The judgment and order dated

08.10.2012, passed in Criminal Case No.

480 of 2011, State Vs. Ranveer Singh, by

the court of 2nd Additional Sessions

Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh

Nagar ("the case"). By it, the revisionist

has been convicted under Sections 420,

467, 468, 471 IPC and sentenced as

hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 420 IPC: to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of

three years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- In

default of payment of fine to undergo

simple imprisonment for a further

period of one month.

(ii) Under Section 467 IPC: to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of

three years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- In

default of payment of fine to undergo

simple imprisonment for a further

period of one month.

(iii) Under Section 468 IPC: to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of

three years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- In

default of payment of fine to undergo

simple imprisonment for a further

period of one month.

(iv) Under Section 471 IPC: to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of

two years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- In

default of payment of fine to undergo

simple imprisonment for a further

period of one month.

(2) Judgment and order dated 07.12.2019,

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of

2012, Ranveer Singh Vs. State, by the

court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

By it, the judgment and order dated

08.10.2012 passed in the case has been

upheld.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy

briefly stated are as follows:-

PW1 Pramjeet Singh filed an application under

Section 153 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

("the Code") which is basis of the case. According to it, his

wife had purchased certain property from one Harvinder

Singh through power of attorney holder Manjeet Kaur for

Rs. 25 Lakh. One Jaswant Singh had also purchased

certain property from its owner Swaraj Singh through power

of attorney holder Manjeet Kaur for Rs.11,66,000/-. But,

according to the application, the revisionist alongwith co-

accused, under a conspiracy, in order to grab the property

purchased by Gurjeet Kaur and Jaswant Singh, prepared a

forged agreement to sale on 10.12.1995 (for short "the

agreement to sale") purported to have been executed by

Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh. The signatures of

Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh were forged on the

agreement to sale. This agreement to sale was placed in a

proceedings under Section 229 B of the Uttar Pradesh

Abolition and Lard Reforms Act, 1950 ("the Act"). According

to the application, on 10.12.1995, Swaraj Singh and

Harvinder Singh were not in India. They were in England.

This application was allowed and FIR was registered. The

Investigating Officer collected information and after

investigation, submitted charge sheet against the

revisionist, which is basis of the case. On 25.04.2012,

charge under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC were framed

against the revisionist. To which, he declined and claimed

trial.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined

six witnesses, namely, PW1 Paramjeet Singh, PW2 Hem

Chandra Sharma, PW3 Smt. Poonam Mehrotra, PW4 Kheem

Singh Adhikari, PW5 Mohd. Yameen and PW6 Ravindra

Singh Toliya.

5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313

of the Code. According to him, he has been falsely

implicated. In his defence, the revisionist produced two

witnesses, namely, DW1 Arun Kumar and DW2 V.K.

Agarwal.

6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned

judgment and order, the revisionist has been convicted and

sentenced as stated hereinbefore. The judgment and order

dated 08.10.2012 has been unsuccessfully challenged in

appeal. Hence, the revision.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit

that the courts below did commit error in convicting the

revisionist. Such documents have been read into evidence,

which are not proved and not admissible into evidence.

There is no evidence to prove the charge framed against the

revisionist. Therefore, it is argued that the impugned

judgments and orders deserve to set aside and the

revisionist is liable to the acquitted of the charge framed

against him.

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel would

submit that the prosecution has been able to prove the

charge against the revisionist.

9. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the

extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of

the impugned judgments and orders. In revision, generally

appreciation of evidence is not done unless the finding is

perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence or inadmissible

evidence is considered or material evidence is not

considered. Within the limited scope, the Court proceeds to

examine the instant case.

10. PW1 Paramjeet Singh is the informant. He has

proved his application given under Section 156 (3) of the

Code, which is Ex. A1. According to him, the power of

attorney was forged by the revisionist. The power of attorney

is dated 10.12.2019, on that date, according to PW1

Paramjeet Singh, Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh were

not in India.

11. PW2 Hem Chandra Sharma is Reader in the court

of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaspur. He has filed a copy of

the agreement to sale, which is Ex. A2 and the plaint filed

under Section 229B of the Act, which is Ex. A3.

12. PW3 Smt. Poonam Mehrotra is a stamp vendor.

She has given general natural evidence. According to her, in

the power of attorney Ex. A2, the name of stamp vendor is

not recorded. She tells the court that whenever the vendor

sells a stamp, they make an endorsement on their register

and such details are also entered on the stamp.

13. PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari is the Investigating

Officer. According to him, he prepared the site plan. He tells

that he wrote letters to Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh,

as to whether, they executed any power of attorney of

10.12.1995. He proved the letters and Dak receipts Ex. A4

to Ex. A7.

14. PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari has also stated that

both Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh have replied to the

letter sent by him through a notarized communication and

informed that they were not in India on 10.12.1995. He has

also stated about the inquiry which he made from

International Airport, Delhi. He proved his letter Ex. A8. He

has also stated that he received a letter from the Foreigners

Regional Registration Office, New Delhi dated 10.11.2010

and its annexure which reveals that on 10.12.1995 Swaraj

Singh and Harvinder Singh were not in India.

15. PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari has also proved his

own communication given to the Foreigners Regional

Registration Office, R.K. Puram, New Delhi Ex. A9 and Ex.

A10. According to PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari, he

telephonically inquired from Swaraj Singh and Harvinder

Singh and both have stated that they were not in India on

10.12.1995.

16. PW5 Mohd. Yameen is an Advocate and retired

Sub-Registrar. He has also stated about the general practice

as to how stamps are purchased, sold and an endorsement

is made. According to him, the agreement to sale, Ex. A2

does not bear signatures and endorsement.

17. PW6 Ravindra Singh Toliya has completed the

investigation in this case and submitted charge sheet Ex.

A11.

18. DW1 Arun Kumar has stated about some

transactions done by the revisionist. He is a Bank Officer.

Similarly, DW2 V.K. Agarwal has also stated about certain

transactions. He proved a few documents, as well.

19. According to the prosecution case, the revisionist

forged the agreement to sale dated 10.12.1995 purported to

have been executed by Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh.

It is the prosecution case that Swaraj Singh and Harvinder

Singh were not in India on that date.

20. In fact, this is no evidence case. PW1 Paramjeet

Singh has not proved that Swaraj Singh and Harvinder

Singh were not in India on 10.12.1995. PW2 Hem Chandra

Sharma had simply proved a copy of the agreement

to sale, which is Ex. A2. PW3 Smt. Poonam Mehrotra

and PW5 Mohd. Yameen has stated generally about the

stamps. As to how they are purchased and sold and how

endorsements are made.

21. PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari has proved a few

documents. He sent letters to Swaraj Singh and Harvinder

Singh, which are Ex.A4 and Ex. A6. Their dak receipts are

Ex. A5 and Ex. A7. These letters namely Ex. A4 and Ex.A6

do not prove anything. They are mere communication by

PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari, the Investigating Officer, made

to Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh. The other

communications made by PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari are

as follows:-

(i) Ex. A8, a communication made by PW4

Kheem Singh Adhikari to Immigration

Officer, International Airport, Delhi dated

22.10.2010.

(ii) Ex. A9, a communication made by PW4

Kheem Singh Adhikari to the Office of

Foreigners Regional Registration Officer,

R.K. Puram, Delhi dated 16.11.2010.

(iii) Ex. A10, a letter dated 09.11.2010 of PW4

Kheem Singh Adhikari written to FRRO, New

Delhi.

22. The above letters do not prove anything. These

are communications made by PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari

with regard to the whereabouts of Swaraj Singh and

Harvinder Singh on 10.12.1995.

23. PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari has stated about two

documents which have been relied on by the trial court and

the appellate court to convict the revisionist, they are a

communication dated 10.11.2010 made from the Foreigners

Regional Registration Officer, New Delhi to Superintendent

of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. It has one

enclosure also. It is paper no. 7A/68 on the record of the

trial court. In page 3 of his statement, PW4 Kheem Singh

Adhikari tells that according to it, on 10.12.1995 Harvinder

Singh and Swaraj Singh were not in India. Second

documents is a notary document allegedly sent by the

Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh. It is paper Nos. 7A/70

and 7A/71 on the trial court record. In page 3 of this

statement, PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari has stated about it.

He tells that according to these notary documents, on

10.12.1995, Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh were not in

India.

24. "Proved", "disproved" and "not proved" are defined

under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Evidence Act").

How a document is to be proved is defined under Chapter V

of the Evidence Act. Section 61 of the Evidence Act provides

that the contents of the documents may be proved either by

primary or by secondary evidence.

25. Section 67 of the Evidence Act provides as to how

to prove the signature and handwriting of a person alleged

to have signed or written document produced. It reads as

hereunder:-

"67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced.- If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting."

26. How a fact may be proved, it is provided under

Sections 59 and 60 of the Act. Except contents of the

documents, oral evidence may prove facts, but it should be

direct.

27. In para 16 (XIII) and (XIV) of the impugned

judgment passed, in the case, the court had taken notice of

communication dated 10.11.2010 (7A/68) purportedly

made by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, New

Delhi as well as the notarized documents (7A/70 and

7A/71). In the impugned judgment passed in the case, the

court has taken note of Sections 56 and 57 (6) of the

Evidence Act and with the help of them, the court read the

notarized documents as well as the communication dated

10.11.2010 made by Foreigners Regional Registration

Officer, New Delhi in evidence. This is an error in law.

28. Section 57 (6) of the Evidence Act reads as

hereunder:-

"57. Facts of which Court must take judicial notice.-The Court shall take judicial notice of the following facts:-

"(6) All seals of which English Courts take judicial notice : the seals of all the Courts in India, and all Courts out of India established by the authority of the Central government or the Crown Representative: the seals of Courts or Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction and of Notaries Public, and all seals which any person is authorized to use by the Constitution or an Act or Parliament of the United Kingdom or an Act or Regulation having the force of law in India."

29. In view of the above, the court may take judicial

notice of all seals of which the English Courts takes judicial

notice. The court may also take the judicial notice of the

notaries public. At the most, what court can take judicial

notice is that Paper 7A/70 and Ex. 7A/71 (in the trial court

record) had a seal of some notary public in England. It may

at the most would lead to the conclusion that these two

documents were notarized in England, but execution of a

document does not prove its contents. Merely on the basis

of these notarized document, it contents are not proved.

Even if it is written in these notarized document by Swaraj

Singh and Harvinder Singh that they were not in India on

10.12.1995, it is not proved that on 10.12.1995 Swaraj

Singh and Harvinder Singh were not in India. These

documents are not evidence. The author is not before the

court. The person who has written the contents is not before

the court. He has not rendered himself available for cross

examination. These documents do not proof anything

relating to the charge levelled against the revisionist.

30. The court below has also relied on paper no.

7A/68 in the trial court record, which is a communication

dated 10.11.2010 of the Foreigners Regional Registration

Officer, New Delhi made to Superintendent of Police, Udham

Singh Nagar. There is an Annexure A, to this

communication, which the court below has read into

evidence to conclude that according to it, on 10.12.1995,

Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh were not in India. This

document 7A/68 and its annexure are not proved. Who has

authored it? Who had sent it? How this Annexure A may be

read into evidence? It is some hand written text. Who signed

it? It is inadmissible evidence. Taking note of these

documents, conviction has been recorded.

31. PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari also tells that

telephonically he inquired from the Swaraj Singh and

Harvinder Singh and they told that they were not in India on

10.12.1995. A criminal charge cannot be proved on such

assertions as made by PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari. His

statements is hearsay evidence on this aspect. The best

evidence would have been the evidence of Swaraj Singh and

Harvinder Singh. They should have been called as witnesses

at trial. They were not examined. The documents which

have been relied by the court below are not admissible. They

were not proved in accordance with law. They could not

have been read into evidence. There is no legally admissible

evidence on record which may prove the charge against the

revisionist.

32. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is

of the view that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the

charge against the revisionist. Accordingly, the revision

deserves to be allowed.

33. The revision is allowed. Both the impugned

judgment and orders dated 08.10.2012 and 07.12.2019 are

set aside. Revisionist is acquitted of the charge under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.

34. The revisionist is on bail. His bond is cancelled

and sureties are discharged of their liability. The revisionist

shall furnish a personal bond and two sureties, each of the

like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned, under

section 437A of the Code within a period of four weeks from

today.

35. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower

Court Record be transmitted to the Court below.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.11.2022 Jitendra