Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 362 (UTT)

Ranveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-11-02

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 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/-. 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 coaccused, 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, PW-2 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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? 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.