Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARMESH SINGH & ORS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harmesh Singh & Ors v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB - CRR-246-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 389 (27 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

DATE OF DECISION: 2.2.2006

Harmesh Singh and others

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
PRESENT:- Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mehtab S.Gill, J.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that order and charge sheet (Annexures P1 and P2) framed against the petitioners is a mechanical order. Trial Court has not appreciated, that the prosecution evidence is on the basis of hear-say evidence and cannot be relied upon.

Jyoti and Nathu, as per the prosecution case, were owners of agricultural land in village Kulbanoo. They were shown as owners in possession of 198 kanals 10 marlas of land. They left the village many years back and thereafter they were not heard of. On 17.11.1992, the petitioners got a general power of attorney executed in the name of petitioner Mukhtiar Singh from Jyoti by putting up a false person in the name of Jyoti. It is further alleged that on the basis of this power of attorney, petitioner Mukhtiar Singh executed two sale deeds dated 31.3.1995 in favour of Balbir Kaur and Harpal Kaur, wives of petitioners No.1 and 2. Jagdish Rai, Naib Tehsildar Patran was also a party to this fraud.

FIR registered against the petitioners is on the basis of secret information. No individual person has come forward to record the FIR.

Learned counsel has prayed that Annexures P1 and P2 be quashed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.

Jyoti and Nathu were owners of 198 kanals 10 marlas of land in village Kulbanoo. They left the village before partition of the country.

Thereafter they were not heard of. 28 kanals of land was cultivated by petitioners Darbara Singh and Harmesh Singh. Some person was produced in the name of Jyoti and a power of attorney was procured on 17.11.1992, though the revenue record showed that Jyoti was missing. It is thereafter that accused Jagdish Rai, who was Naib Tehsildar Patran at that time, registered two sale deeds in favour of the wives of petitioners Darbara Singh and Harmesh Singh.

I do not find any infirmity in the order and charge framed against the petitioners (Annexures P1 and P2). Without going further into the merits of the case, lest it affects the trial, petition is dismissed.

(Mehtab S.Gill)

Judge

2.2.2006

AS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.