Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 73 (HP)

Parkash Chand/complainant v. Satish Sarotri

2013-01-10

DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. This is the complainant’s appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, assailing the judgment dated 12.7.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala in Cr.R.B.T. Case No. 51-II/04/02, titled as Parkash Chand versus Satish Sarotri and another. In terms of the said judgment, both the accused, the respondents herein stands acquitted. 2. On 13.6.2002 the present appellant Sh. Parkash Chand filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, Dharamshala against the private respondents. Allegedly Sh. Satish Salotra (accused No.1) persuaded the complainant and managed to get power of attorney executed in his favour. In terms thereof land owned by the complainant situated in village Sidhpur, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. could be sold. The complainant executed power of attorney (Ext. CW-1/A) with respect to khasra numbers 963, 964, 971, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 992 and 959. Even though sale deed dated 22.11.2001 (Ext. CW-1/D) was executed in favour of Sh. Yog Raj (accused No. 2) but the complainant did not receive the sale proceeds which were actually mis-appropriated by the accused No.1. Also subsequently complainant learnt that both the accused persons had in fact carried out interpolation in the general power of attorney (Ext. CW-1/A) on the basis of which his land comprising khasra No. 980 was also sold off. Neither in the original power of attorney there was any mention of khasra No. 980 nor had the complainant intended to sell the same. Allegedly after registration of the document, interpolation was carried out and over khasra No. 971 No. 980 was written. 3. Based on the statement of the complainant, summons were issued. Both the accused persons were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally accused No. 1 was also charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The complainant led oral as well as documentary evidence. Statement of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and in defence accused also examined three witnesses. 5. Appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Court below acquitted both the accused of all the charges, hence, the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record we are of the view that the present appeal only merits rejection. P.C. and in defence accused also examined three witnesses. 5. Appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Court below acquitted both the accused of all the charges, hence, the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record we are of the view that the present appeal only merits rejection. No case for interference is made out at all. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the impugned judgment. 7. Significantly in his testimony, the complainant who deposed as CW-1 admitted valid execution and attestation of his power of attorney (Ext. CW-1/A) as also sale deed (Ext. CW-1/D). The power of attorney is in favour of accused No. 1 and the sale deed is executed in favour of accused No. 2. Perusal of the document Ext. CW-1/A reveals that in place of khasra No. 971, khasra No. 980 is written. There is correction and figure “7” has been converted to “8” and figure “1” has been converted to “0”. The corrections are in hand. 8. In order to establish that the correction was carried out after registration of the document, the complainant has placed on record photocopy of the general power of attorney (Mark-X) which allegedly was issued to him from the office of the Registrar after the document was registered. On this document there is no mention of khasra No. 980 but only 971. But then this is only a photocopy and not a certified copy. There is no explanation forthcoming on the part of the complainant as to why the certified copy of this document was not placed on record. Also where is this document has not been explained. Crucially the complaint has been filed only against the private respondents and not against the officials working in the office of the Registrar. Interpolation of a document could not have taken place without the connivance of these officials. In fact this is also not his case. Complainant has not explained that the accused alone had access to the documents maintained by the office of the Registrar. They are not employees working in the said office. In law there is presumption of valid execution of a document. 9. On the other hand we find that the accused have examined Sh. Kartar Chand (DW-1), Registration Clerk, who proved the execution and attestation of the general power of attorney (Ext. CW-1/A). They are not employees working in the said office. In law there is presumption of valid execution of a document. 9. On the other hand we find that the accused have examined Sh. Kartar Chand (DW-1), Registration Clerk, who proved the execution and attestation of the general power of attorney (Ext. CW-1/A). Also the scribe i.e. Sh. Mohinder Singh (DW-3) of the said document, in his unrebutted testimony has deposed that the word “980” was corrected under instructions of all concerned and prior to the registration of the document. Necessary record i.e. extract of his register (Ext. DW-3/A) was also produced by him to corroborate this version of his. We also find that the agreement to sell (Ext. DA) in terms of which khasra No. 980 was agreed to be sold was actually scribed by Sh. Raj Kumar (DW-2). Even he in his unrebutted testimony has deposed that necessary correction was carried out at the time of execution and attestation of the document. 10. In order to satisfy our conscious and to see the Registered General Power of Attorney, we had called for the original register from the Office of the Sub Registrar, Kangra. We find that not only there are corrections at the places where khasra numbers are mentioned but also at other places making the defence of the accused, that khasra No. 980 was intended to be sold and corrections were carried out to rectify the mistake under the instructions of all concerned, to be absolutely plausible and probable. 11. Thus in our considered view the complainant has failed to establish and prove that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed an offence of criminal breach of trust, forgery and used the same as a genuine document. 12. For the aforesaid reasons the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. It is a settled position of law that judgment rendered in a criminal trial is not binding on a Civil Court but since the lis between the parties is pending before the Civil Court, we abundantly clarify that findings herein shall have no bearing on the same which have to be adjudicated and decided on its own merit. Record be returned.