State of Punjab Vs Gurmeet Lal & Ors.

11 CRA-483-2017

In the Court of Bishan Saroop, Additional Session Judge,

Ludhiana. (UID No. PB-0449)

CNR No. PBLD01-013942-2017

Crl. Appeal No. 8373 of 04.07.2017
Filing No.CRA/483/2017
Date of Decision: 22.12.2021.

State of Punjab.
Appellant.
Versus
1. Gurmeet Lal aged about 79 years son of Dewan Chand, resident of H.No.
149/8, Katra Karam Singh, Amritsar.
2. Subhash Bhatia resident of House No. 1414/7, Guru Nanak Gali, Amritsar
(Discharged).
3. Gaurav, resident of House No. 149/8, Karta Karam Singh, Amritsar
(discharged).
4. Ravi Sood son of Brij Bhushan Sood, aged about 40 years, resident of H.No.
1671, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh Road, LUdhiana.
5. Radhey Shyam aged about 73 years son of Om Parkash, resident of H.No.
544, Street No. 7, Near Ahata Badan Singh, Moga.
---Respondents.

Appeal against the judgment and order dated

24.04.2017 passed by the Court of Mr. Sudhir
Kumar, PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Addl. PP for the appellant State.

Mr. Ravdeep Singh Atwal, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.
1 & 2.
Respondent No. 3 in person.
Sh. G.S. Virk, Advocate counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5.

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated

24.04.2017 passed by the Court of Mr. Sudhir Kumar, PCS, Judicial Magistrate

1st Class, Ludhiana, in criminal case, FIR No. 144 dated 20.07.2005 U/s 406,

420 of IPC, Police Station Division No. 7, Ludhiana whereby the respondents

Bishan Saroop(PB0449)
ASJ/LDH 22.12.2021
State of Punjab Vs Gurmeet Lal & Ors. 11 CRA-483-2017

have been acquitted.

2. The respondents/accused have been sent up by the SHO, Police

Station Division No. 7, Ludhiana to face trial for the offence punishable under

Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The facts as put forth by the prosecution are that FIR has been

recorded on the statement of Sangeet Devi on the basis of written application to

the Senior Superintendent Police wherein she stated that Gurmeet Lal son of

Dewan Chand resident of 288/B.I, Katra Karam Singh, Amritsar contacted the

complainant in the month of September, 1993 at House No.599, Sector-38,

Samrala Road, Ludhiana and offered to sell his plot no.2447 measuring 150

square yards situated at Sector-32-A, Urban Estate, Samrala Road, Ludhiana.

The deal of the said plot was then struck for the consideration of Rs.25,000/- to

be paid to the accused Gurmeet lal and the remaining amount of the plot was to

be paid to the PUDA authorities by way of remaining installments and then an

agreement was executed on 12.09.1993 at Ludhiana by the accused to sell his

plot duly signed by him in the presence of Pardeep Singh and Varinder Kumar.

In the said agreement, it was also agreed that the complainant would get the

sale deed executed in her favour on the payment of the remaining amount to

the PUDA at Ludhiana and the possession of the said plot was delivered to the

complainant by Gurmeet Lal in the presence of aforesaid attesting witnesses

and in the presence of Suresh Kumar husband of the complainant party

constructed a boundary wall and installed a gate in the aforesaid plot. Gurmeet

Lal also executed a power-of-attorney dated 14.09.1993 in favour of Suresh

Kumar son of Sh.Piare Lal husband of the applicant and got the same

registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ludhiana on 14.09.1993. Gurmeet Lal

executed a will as well as declaration by way of an affidavit duly sworn by him

Bishan Saroop(PB0449)
ASJ/LDH 22.12.2021
State of Punjab Vs Gurmeet Lal & Ors. 11 CRA-483-2017

and both these documents were signed by Gurmeet Lal. These documents were

scribed by him in favour of complainant. The possession of the said plot was

transferred to the complainant and since then the complainant and his family

members are in actual and pysical possession of the said plot. After the

execution of aforesaid agreement, the complainant used to deposit the

remaining installments with PUDA authority at Ludhiana. Payment of

Rs.20,000/- was made on 26.02.2003 by Suresh Kumar to PUDA vide bank

draft no.636000 dated 25.02.2003, again payment of Rs.72,244/- was made

vide DD Dated 29.02.2000 and amount of Rs.32,625/- was deposited with the

PUDA vide DD No.101949 dated 13.09.1993 through Suresh Kumar husband

of complainant. Now Gurmeet Lal hatched a conspiracy to deprive the

complainant of her aforesaid plot in connivance with Ravi Narang son of Shri

Hans Raj, resident of 568, LIG Flat, Sector 32, Ludhiana and in pursuance of

that conspiracy Gurmeet Lal got registered a sale deed of th aforesaid plot in

favour of Ravi Narang in fraudulent way and to cheat the complainant. The

aforesaid plot no.2447 is in possession of the complainant since 1993 when in

the month of January,2005 Ravi Narang along with Gurmeet Lal along with 2/3

unknown persons entered into the said property and threatened the complainant

to vacate the plot and they also abuse the complainant and threatened to kill her

and also damaged the front wall and gate of the plot in presence of Suresh

Kumar. They also threatened the complainant that if she did not deliver the

possession of the said plot she would be eliminated. Gurmeet Lal has no right ,

title or interest in the said plot which has already ben sold to the complainant

vide an agreement to sell duly executed by him. Thus he has caused a wrongful

loss to the complainant and in order to deprive the complainant of the aforesaid

plot, he sold the plot to Ravi Narang vide sale deed dated 17.11.2003. He has

Bishan Saroop(PB0449)
ASJ/LDH 22.12.2021
State of Punjab Vs Gurmeet Lal & Ors. 11 CRA-483-2017

committed offence under section 406/420/467/468/447/506/427 of IPC. On the

basis of this application , an inquiry was conducted and it was concluded that

earlier power-of-attorney was given by Gurmeet Lal to Sangeeta Devi. Then

after that registration was made in his favour by Gurmeet Lal due in

connivance with Radhey Shyam Clerk PUDA and Gurmeet Lal and

recommendation of registration of case u/s 406/420 IPC was made. On the

basis of FIR, challan was prepared and presented against accused Gurmeet Lal,

Subhash Bhatia, Gaurav Bhatia, Ravi Sood and Radhe Shyam. As per the

orders of Hon'ble High Court the proceedings are stayed against accused Ravi

Sood . So his case is separated from this file as per provision of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

4. On presentation of challan in the court, the accused persons were

supplied with the complete copies of documents as required under law.

5. After hearing learned APP as well as perusing the documents on

the file, a prima facie case for offence punishable under section 406/420 r/w

120-B of IPC was found to be made out against all the accused persons.

Accordingly, charge was framed against all the accused persons to whom they

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined PW1 Suresh

Kumar, PW2 Inspector Paramjit Singh, PW-3 Pardeep Singh, PW-4 Narinder

Kumar and PW-5 Sangeeta Devi. After getting several opportunities the

prosecution failed to conclude that evidence so evidence was closed vide order

dated 20.02.2017.

7. Statements of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C recorded by

putting the entire incriminating evidence appeared against them to which they

denied all the allegations and stated that they are innocent and falsely

Bishan Saroop(PB0449)
ASJ/LDH 22.12.2021
State of Punjab Vs Gurmeet Lal & Ors. 11 CRA-483-2017

implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence alleged by

the complainant. The accused Gurmeet Lal tendered into evidence documents

Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and closed their evidence.

8. After hearing the learned Addl. P.P. for the State and learned

defence counsel, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 24.04.2017

acquitted the accused mentioned above.

9. Aggrieved with the judgment, the present appeal has been

preferred by the State of Punjab and record of learned lower court was

summoned.

10. Upon notice, learned counsel for the respondents-accused

appeared and controverted the pleas and assertions of the appellant and a

prayer for dismissal of the appeal has, thus, been made.

11. Learned Addl. PP for the appellant State has vehemently

contended that the judgment of trial court is illegal and against law and facts

and the same is liable to be set aside. The judgment of acquittal learned trial

Magistrate has not properly appreciated the facts of the case and the findings

recorded by the learned trial Magistrate are erroneous and based on surmises

and conjectures. Learned Addl. PP for the appellant State has further

contended that the ld. Trial court has wrongly acquitted the

accused/respondents. He further contended that the ld. Lower court wrongly

held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

shadow of doubt with regard to the charges framed against the accused for an

offence under section 406, 420 r/w 120-B of IPC and it has further been

wrongly held that the accused are not guilty and this approach of ld. Trial court

is totally incorrect, and trial court without consideration the version of

appellant acquitted the accused persons.

Bishan Saroop(PB0449)
ASJ/LDH 22.12.2021
State of Punjab Vs Gurmeet Lal & Ors. 11 CRA-483-2017

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have come

forward with the plea that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment

rendered by the learned trial Magistrate and, therefore, the same is liable to be

up-held. He further argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He further relied upon law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Rangaiah Vs. State of

Karnataka 2009 (1) R.c.R. (Criminal) 923, wherein, it has been held that

“An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there

is double presumption in favour of the accused – Firstly, the presumption of

innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal

jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is

proved guilty by a competent court of law – Secondly, the accused having

secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,

reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court”.

13. After hearing the respective contentions of both the sides and

having re-appraised and re-appreciated the record carefully, no fault is found in

the judgment of the trial Court.

14. Now the question for determination arises as to whether the

prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the commission of

offences beyond shadow of reasonable doubt? The answer would be in the

negative. Further the question for determination arises as to whether

prosecution has succeeded in proving all the essential ingredients so as to

attract charge under Section 420, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ?

Prosecution failed to prove to connect the accused with the present case.

Further the question that therefor arises for consideration is whether the martial

on record prima facie constitutes any offence against the accused. The

Bishan Saroop(PB0449)
ASJ/LDH 22.12.2021
State of Punjab Vs Gurmeet Lal & Ors. 11 CRA-483-2017

contention of the appellant is that if the allegations made in the complaint, even

if accepted to be true in entirety did not disclose the ingredients of any offence

of forgery or cheating and there was no other material to show any offence.

15. From the perusal of evidence produced by the prosecution shows

that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the

respondents. The prosecution case is that accused Gurmeet Lal executed a

power of attorney in favour of Sangeeta Devi and also took the money from

the husband of Sangeeta Devi namely Suresh Kumar and accused Gurmeet

Lal, Ravi Sood and Rahde Syam in connivance with each other with intent to

cheat the complainant prepared power of attorney, agreement to sell and caused

wrongful loss to the complainant wrongful gain to himself and all the cheating

be committed by involving PUDA officials namely Radhy Shaym and property

was sold out to Ravi Narang vide conveyance deed and misuse the amount

entrusted by the complainant to the accused for his own use. Prosecution

examined complainant Sangeeta Devi as PW5 who deposed that Gurmit Lal

son of Diwan Chand contacted her through he husband to sell plot No. 2447

measuring 150 sq yards, Sector 32-A Ludhiana. The deal was struck a a sum of

25,000/- was to be paid to Gurmeet Lal rest of the amount was settled to be

paid to PUDA authorities through installments. An agreement of sale was duly

executed on 12.09.2013 which was got signed by her husband on her behalf.

Agreement is Ex.P1(Ex.PW1/A) already on the file which bears the signatures

of Gurmeet Lal and witnesses by Narinder Kumar and Pardeep Singh. Gurmeet

Lal also executed one affidavit which is Ex.PW1/E, Gurmeet Lal also

executed General Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/B in favour of Suresh Kumar

her husband and got the same registered in the office of Sub Registrar

Ludhiana which already on the file. Gurmeet Lal also executed one will

Bishan Saroop(PB0449)
ASJ/LDH 22.12.2021
State of Punjab Vs Gurmeet Lal & Ors. 11 CRA-483-2017

Ex.PW1/D. In the agreement it was agreed that sale deed will be got executed

by making entire payment to PUDA. After the execution of documents, she

constructed the boundary wall and affixed the gate there. He possession of the

said plot is with her and since then she and her family are in actual and

physical possession of the said plot. Her husband Suresh Kumar at her

instructions, deposited the installment in the office of PUDA. She further stated

that Gurmeet Lal hatched a conspiracy to deprive her of above said plot in

connivance with his co accused Ravi Narang fraudulently executed sale deed in

favour of Ravi Narang. During her cross-examination she admitted that she has

not participated in any sale purchase of the property in dispute. She know

nothing about the execution of any of the document personally. Ex.D1 and

Ex.D2 are correct. She has not leveled any allegations in her complainant or in

statement against Radhe Shyam. The prosecution has failed to prove on record

any legally executable document created by the accused Gurmeet Lal as he was

not the owner of the property at the time of execution of alleged agreement to

sell and even being original allotted Gurmeet Lal was not competent to execute

any agreement in favour of Sangeeta Devi as he had not obtained the

ownership of the suit property and being the property of PUDA. It is admitted

by Gurmeet Lal, the husband of the complainant PW1 who was act on behalf

of complainant Sangeeta Devi and complainant that at the time of execution

of the denouements, the possession of the property was transferred and it is

established principle of law that a dishonest intention at the time of the initial

transaction must appear to be clear. When the intention to cheat is absent the

subsequent conduct of the accused cannot make the transaction an offence of

cheating and by transferring the possession as deposed by Gurmeet Lal. It

clearly transpires if the possession was transferred then there is no such

Bishan Saroop(PB0449)
ASJ/LDH 22.12.2021
State of Punjab Vs Gurmeet Lal & Ors. 11 CRA-483-2017

intention to deceive and dishonest at the time of initial point of transaction,

there is not offence cheat int made out against the accused. It is well settled law

agreement to sell does not create any title, so there is no question of cheating

the only remedy available to the complainant is to approach the Civil Court to

get the sale deed executed in her favour. Prosecution has to prove the

entrustment that the wittinesses have deposed that the consideration has passed

at the time execution of agreement but Suresh Kumar who alleged to be acted

on behalf of the complainant failed to prove on record how he get the amount

as amount alleged to be deposited by him was not proved to be arranged by

him from his account and he admitted that he is an income tax assesses, but he

failed to show that same was paid rather he denied the same being accounted in

income tax return. The learned trial court rightly discarded the testimonies of

prosecution witnesses. Further perusal of the whole evidence it is established

that the prosecution has failed to prove all the essential ingredients of offence

under Section U/ss 420,406,120-B,of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, it is

cardinal principle of law that the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of

surmises and conjectures. The benefit of doubt, as and when the same arises,

however, marginal same may be, is bound to tilt in favour of the accused.

Therefore, it stands fully proved that the prosecution has not been able to

connect the accused with the commission of offence beyond any reasonable

doubt.

16. In the light of what is discussed above and without elaborating

further, it is found that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt for

the commission of offence under Sections U/ss 420,406,120-B,of the Indian

Penal Code against any of the accused. Consequently, the instant appeal

preferred by the State through Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the

Bishan Saroop(PB0449)
ASJ/LDH 22.12.2021
State of Punjab Vs Gurmeet Lal & Ors. 11 CRA-483-2017

accused-respondents, fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Record of trial

Court be returned along with copy of this Judgment. File be consigned to the

Record Room.

Pronounced In Open Court on :

22th day of December 2021. (Bishan Saroop UID­PB0449)
Additional Session Judge,
Ludhiana.
Aditya Kumar, Stenographer Gr.III (Note: Directly Dictated on Computer)

Bishan Saroop(PB0449)
ASJ/LDH 22.12.2021