Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1225 (PNJ)

Munshi Singh v. State Of Haryana

2005-11-30

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. Petitioners-accused had been convicted for offence under Sections 218/120-B IPC by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sirsa vide judgment dated 28.8.1989. They were sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment for fine, they were to undergo RI for three months. Out of the fine collected, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was to be paid to Munshi Singh complaintant. Appeal filed by the present petitioners-accused against that judgment was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide judgment dated 3.10.1989. Bhag Singh petitioner-accused died during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Munshi Singh complainant had filed a separate revision petition for enhancement of the sentence and for payment of compensation. Munshi Singh also died during the pendency of this petition. Zora Singh his only son filed an application for substitution, which was allowed by this Court. 3. The proceedings in this case had started on complaint filed by Munshi Singh against Iqbal Singh Naib Tehsilder, Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Singh sons of Khem Kaur, Bhag Singh Patwari and two others on the allegations that Gur Iqbal Singh was working as A.C. II Grade at Kalan Wali. Khem Kaur was sister of the complainant Munshi Singh. She had died on 17.8.1968. Wazira, brother of the complainant died on 3.2.1981. He was unmarried and issueless. Complainant Munshi Singh being brother was only heir of that Wazira Singh. He had been requesting Bhag Singh Patwari and Gur Iqbal Singh to sanction mutation in his favour. He had shown Death Certificate of Khem Kaur issued by the Civil Surgeon, Bathinda but that Naib Tehsildar and Dalip Singh Patwari had in conspiracy with other accused sanctioned mutation No. 4607 in favour of the complainant Munshi Singh and Khem Kaur in equal shares fully knowing that Khem Kaur died and she was not an heir of Wazira. This mutation was sanctioned on 10.6.1981. When complainant came to know about it, he made complaint against Naib Tehsildar and Patwari. He lodged a report before the police also but police did not take any action. That Naib Tehsildar and Patwari had wrongly prepared incorrect record i.e. Mutation of Wazira with intention to cause loss or injury to Munshi Singh, who was only heir of Wazira and Khem Kaur had no right whatsoever. He lodged a report before the police also but police did not take any action. That Naib Tehsildar and Patwari had wrongly prepared incorrect record i.e. Mutation of Wazira with intention to cause loss or injury to Munshi Singh, who was only heir of Wazira and Khem Kaur had no right whatsoever. The Magistrate, however, did not proceed against Harnam Kaur and Bhagwan Kaur daughters of Khem Kaur. He proceeded only against Gur Iqbal Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Bhag Singh Patwari, Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Singh sons of Khem Kaur in whose favour, the mutation had been sanctioned. 4. After appearance of the accused in the case, witnesses had been examined. It came out that the complainant Munshi Singh had challenged the mutation before the revenue authorities and then also in the civil Court and that mutation was set aside and it was ultimately held that Munshi Singh was the only heir of Wazira. It was duly proved on record that Khem Kaur had already died in the year 1968. It was admitted position that Wazira was unmarried and issueless. If sister of deceased was there, then she could share equally with Munshi Singh but if the sister had died then the brother was the only legal heir as per Class II, entry (ii) of Schedule (Section) 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 5. Since Khem Kaur was already dead, mutation of half share of Wazira Singh sanctioned in favour of Khem Kaur, was to benefit Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, sons of Khem Kaur. Trial Court ultimately found the case proved against the present petitioners. Appeal filed by convicted persons was dismissed. 6. In the present petition, on behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that the Naib Tehsildar or Bhag Singh Patwari did not know that Khem Kaur had died. Munshi Singh complainant was very well present when the mutation was entered and sanctioned. He, however, did not bring this fact to the notice of the public officials. It was also argued that the complaint was filed at a belated stage. 7. I find that mutation had been sanctioned in the year 1981. Munshi Singh complainant had filed complaint in the year 1982 i.e. immediately thereafter. From the perusal of mutation itself, it would appear that at one stage, it was mentioned on that document itself that Khem Kaur was dead. 7. I find that mutation had been sanctioned in the year 1981. Munshi Singh complainant had filed complaint in the year 1982 i.e. immediately thereafter. From the perusal of mutation itself, it would appear that at one stage, it was mentioned on that document itself that Khem Kaur was dead. Still the public officials did not make any enquiry and knowingly sanctioned the mutation in favour of Khem Kaur to give benefit to Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, sons of Khem Kaur. As such I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court and that of the appellate Court as far as conviction of the present petitioners for the offence under Sections 218/120-B IPC is concerned since the Naib Tehsildar and Patwari, who were to enter the mutation and sanction it, had made incorrect record of mutation fully knowing that it will cause loss to the complainant Munshi Singh. This was done in conspiracy with Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Singh sons of Khem Kaur. As such revision petition as far as conviction of the petitioners is concerned, is dismissed. 8. Counsel for the petitioners had argued that Gur Iqbal Singh had since retired whereas Bhag Singh had died and the offence if any was committed in the year 1981 and a lenient view be taken. 9. On behalf of the complainant, it was argued that the complainant was put to loss by intentional act of the petitioner, who acted after entering into conspiracy and made false mutation, which complainant had to challenge before the revenue authorities and the Civil Courts. He had to spend huge amount and had remained under tension for all the years. 10. In the revision petition filed on behalf of the complainant, it had been prayed that sentence imposed upon the petitioners be enhanced to three years and compensation be got awarded. 11. I find that it will not be proper to send the petitioners to custody at this stage after about 25 years of the occurrence especially when their appeal had also been dismissed 16 years back. Complainant can sufficiently be compensated with compensation. Under these circumstances, it is directed that Gur Iqbal Singh, Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Singh petitioners shall deposit Rs. Complainant can sufficiently be compensated with compensation. Under these circumstances, it is directed that Gur Iqbal Singh, Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Singh petitioners shall deposit Rs. 20,000/- each for payment as compensation to Zora Singh son of Munshi Singh complainant in the Court of C.J.M., Sirsa within three months from today, failing which, they shall be liable to undergo the sentence. If the compensation is deposited, then the petitioners shall be released on probation for a period of two years on the furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Sirsa. They shall maintain peace and be good behaviour. 12. With this modification, petition stands disposed of.