Gurmail Singh v. Pawan Kumar And ANR
!"#$"%&#'(()
' *+,( - ,- ,, + ****
!
" !#
!#
$%
&
'( - "".#/ 012 ( )%* !
! ,# - !.
#!
!
( #
! 10% 22 (. ! 3 4
5 '
%60//0%7 (.
&
-
##
'
/706/0%, (. & 82
$%9 ( !5 "8$:7 /%01/00:
! 1/031;731;<317%82 !
)/* ! # !
# .
&
'
%60//0%7
!# !. # (. !! %,0//0%7 0106/0%7
#(
!# !. # .
/:%0/0%7
. ! ! ! ! 60%0/0%7
4 # #
!# !.# '
#
- 2 - ! 8 # ( ! 4 # ! ( !
# # (! !
! (!4 # !
#
. %<%//0%7 # # ( #
# ! ! #
'
# ##!# !! %:%//0%7
.
= ./0%//0%7 !
! # (# 2
!
. !! ( .
. )6* > ! # )1* ?#
# ! # # ( !# #!
.
. ( ##!
. 8 # !
# .
! ( . ! !
!!(
! = (## #!
# . # # 2! =!
! ! !( '! ),*
( !! ! . %/
9
!
- 3 - );*
! ,# - ! . !
! ! (=! .# . ! -
. !!( .# = .! .#
.( !
( # #!!( = ! ! .# .
!
2 # '
# . = ! ! ( .
( # # !
! ! !! = ##! # =!# ! )7* ! # .'#( = # !
2 (.
&
%60//0%7 $! 4 (. ! ! # ( = # ! (. ##!# !! + ! # #9=! #
.4 4! !
!'
4 #(.
4 .<
4# ( . !
# # # .. ##!# ! ( )<* .!
(!
.(! @!
! #. . .#( ! .4
# 8
!
!
. ( (.
# (
.#
! + ##! ! ! # ( ! (.
! # . 4
# + 9! A !
- 4 - .
. .
= !( . #
! # !
! (.
. . '#( =!(
! (# !# ):* 2 !# ! " #$%$ !# .
(. !
! ( !
(##! !
# B ! ! #( # A! ( ( ! ! # ( ! ( '! 4 # '!! !
)%0* C t becomes worthwhile to note that the lower appellate court while considering the allegation as to whether respondent No.1 forged the public record i.e. resolution dated 07.08.2003 of the Society by inserting words in Punjabi intending to use the same for the purpose of cheating, affirmed the finding returned by the trial court and acquitted him of the charges leveled firstly on the ground that there was unexplained and undue delay in lodging the FIR inasmuch as the resolution stated tampered is of dated 07.08.2003 whereas the complaint Ex.P1 was moved after 5 years i.e. 02.09.2008. Secondly, the President of the Society was not joined in the investigation to prove the tampering, if any, which in itself casts aspersion on the conduct of the petitionercomplainant Gurmail Singh who is the Sarpanch and thirdly, the deposition of PW6 Darshan Singh and PW8 Bhupinder Singh would show that the questioned writings (Mark A4) were there at the time when the resolution was read over to the members of the Society by the President of the Society before appending their
- 5 - signatures over the same and as such, the FSL report Ex.PW7/A was rightly held to be of not much significance, as a result of which, the allegations leveled against the respondent No.1 could not be proved by the prosecution and hence he has been acquitted. )%%* # ( ! ! 4
!
#
! . #
!!
. )%/* D !!
. /00//0/, "" 3- "".#/ 014
/ 0"
1. Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No
2. Whether reportable?
Yes/No