AT CHANDIGARH v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *****

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated

24.07.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, vide which, the respondents No.2 to 11, have been acquitted for offences under Sections 448, 427, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. As per the facts recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, “the prosecution version that ASI Simarjit Singh along with LC Mangal Singh, L.C. Satnam Singh, C. Sanjiv Kumar, SPO Inder Singh were on patrol duty when the complainant Harjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh and his son both residents of Village Bath came to him and Harjit Singh gave his statement to the effect that he was running a welding shop as tenant under Mohinder Singh son of Chanan Singh, resident of Bath for which he was paying monthly rent of Rs.250/- against the receipt. For the Crl. Rev. No.175 of 2008 2 last two years, electric connection No.SPX 0-494 was installed in the shop which is also in his name. Mohinder Singh and his brothers wanted to dispossess him from the spot and for that reason he filed a case in the Court of Shri J.K. Mattoo, the then JMIC, Tarn Taran. On 02.09.1997 at about 7.30 pm., as usual, he along with his son, Harbhajan Singh were going towards his house when his brother Onkar Singh who resided nearby bus stand, came to them. In the meantime accused Mohinder Singh, Manjinder Singh, Gurbej Singh, Jaswant Singh, sons of Chanan Singh, Dhian Singh, Diwan Singh, Kaku, Puran Singh and Jagir Singh, all of them were carrying iron sabals, spades etc. came and started raising lalkaras and forcible possession of shop be taken. They cut the locks and broke the gate of the shop. They entered the shop forcibly and threw out goods i.e. welding set, electric motor and iron goods lying in the shop. They scaled the roof and demolished the roof and also demolished the wall of the shop. They also took out Rs.100/- and coins lying in cash box. At that time, Subash Chander son of Lal Chand resident of Bath and Mangal Singh member of Bahujan Samaj Party, Swinder Kaur wife of Chanan Singh of Bath were instigating the accused for taking over forcible possession of the shop.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the order of acquittal, stated that during the course of its evidence, the prosecution examined the petitioner as PW1 who proved on record the rent receipts Ex.P1, P2 electricity bills Ex.P3, P4, his statement Ex.PA and possession and memo of bills Ex.PC. Son of the petitioner deposed as PW2 and supported the version of the prosecution. PW3 ASI Anil Kumar proved on record FIR Ex.PW3/A and recovery memo Ex.PC. PW4 Balwant Singh gave the estimate regarding the change of the property. PW5 Kulwinder Singh from PSEB testified that electricity connection No.SPX.0-494 was issued in the name of the petitioner. PW6 I.O. Proved the endorsement. Crl. Rev. No.175 of 2008 3 On the statement of the petitioner Ex.PA as Ex.PA/1 broken locks Ex.PW6/1 and Ex.PW6/2 were taken into police custody vide recovery memo Ex.PD, Site Plan Ex.PW6/A, photos Ex.PW6/3 to Ex.PW6/5, negatives Ex.PW6/6 to PW6/9, bills Ex.PB. Hardial Singh Meter Reader was examined as PW7 who stated that bill Ex.P3 was issued in the name of Harjit Singh, whereas, the main ground taken by the trial Court for acquittal the accused person is that apart from the evidence of the petitioner and his son, there is no other independent witness examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that apart from the evidence of the petitioner and his son, evidence documentary and otherwise as above has come on record which fully corroborates the case of the petitioner. Secondly, the trial Court erred in relying on Exhibit DA, vide which, the possession is alleged to have been handed over to the accused person as the petitioner had denied his signatures on the same and the prosecution had duly moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to examine handwriting expert but the application was dismissed by the trial Court. Thus, exhibit DA cannot be taken note of. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. However, there is not merit in the submissions. The premises, in question, is a shop. There is a bus stand nearby. The incident is of 29.08.1997 at 7.30 p.m. The shops were still open at that time. Normally, the shopkeepers have sympathy for their fellow shopkeeper. In spite of the above, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Thus, there is no corroboration of the prosecution case. Exhibit DA is the agreement, vide which, the possession was handed over. No doubt, the petitioner had denied his signatures on the same and the application of the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C to examine the expert was dismissed. Be that as it may, the Order passed on Crl. Rev. No.175 of 2008 4 the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was never challenged. Thus, the same attained finality. As such, the said Exhibit DA was proved on the record by defence by examining DW-1. Thus, offence under Section 427 IPC cannot be said to be made out against the respondents. Moreover, PW-1 admitted in his evidence that there was a storm on 27.08.1997 and the building was damaged on account of the same. Thus, the damage was not caused by the respondents-accused. The prosecution has not been able to prove his case against the respondents. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

08.03.2010 gurpreet (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE