Bimla Devi v. Kailash And Another

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH
 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.04.2022 Bimla Devi

...Petitioner

Versus

Kailash and another

...Respondents

237-A
  (O&M) Date of decision: 07.04.2022 Bimla Devi

...Petitioner

Versus

Ram Singh and another

...Respondents

237-B
   (O&M) Date of decision: 07.04.2022 Bimla Devi

...Petitioner

Versus

Durga Parshad and others

...Respondents

    
      





 
 







!" ****      



 


 

  

 



 
 
#$


 "

%&
"

 $
 

 '
 

 
 (
 )
 
  "

 $
 



 











  


*++(,-./(,%/0

 
)"
 
 ( 
 
 


 1

 
 

 


 "

2
 
#$

 
* 







 !"



)  

 
( 

 )
 



)3

 

 



 4
 

$

 
 
 






 "

&
"

 $
 



  ! "# $ %!$



 



 
)

 



5 





 
 


* 

$

 




 
3 $

%/ %6 ,%/0

)"
 
 

$
1


)"
  
 
)"
 
 "
7 $


7
+
$ 
  





$
 
3 $







)"
 

 "

5 

 
 $

$
 


-/0
-,%
-6&
-68
-&/

/,%(9
:*




 


)


)"



* 






            !!"# $"# $#%#& ! '!( ) ( ( ( *# ) +,&('- . 

/

 &,$"( !*'0 "#   $# '0 $"#   "   ! $ 1(  2#   1!&3!#,% #!(*)+%!'!()## 

 $"# &, ,   4!(  ( 1# '&(-



.

 &( -  

 6 $"# 3! $!*'0

% ##(!&! "4""#,( # &   " &,   # 78% -!#% 98  ( !: 5/     $# )!

  ; )  ; <
2
$




 $


-/0
-,%
-6&
-68
-&/

/,%(9
:*


)"
 
$





// %6 ,%/;


 
 
 

$ "

 


:





 
 

<

"


 :
 




;/;
* * 
  

 
 


 




* 

$
 

 ) 



3 $



,.

%& ,%/6





,8 %& ,%/6

 
 

$ "


-/0
-,%
-6&
-68

-&/
:*


 

$



"


"



+ /%%%=(



 


)








9$


 

3 $







)"
 
 
 



 
 
)



* 
>
 $
3 $

%/ %6 ,%/0
 
 

$
1





  
3 $



)"
 

5 
 
 

 
 $

$
 


!
 

 '
 

 

 )
 
 
$

)"
 


)










* 

)  

 

 "

 $ 
 
 
$




 $ 

 
"

:

  
 )
 


 
)






 < 

 




$ "
 

* 


 
$




 
 
 







* 

#



 
 

:




 )
 
 



* 







$

 



3 $



)"
  !$


 

 

:



"


 






 
 

 
 



  



$ "

 (7 $



 

"


$
 


$

)"

)"
$
( 

7
 




 ( 9 

 
7 $


9 

 
+
$

 
* 

 
 
$ 

$


)5  "

$
 

 
7 $


 
 

  
)"
"

< $

$
 

)$
1 0.%

%.

%8 ,%,%

1 /,%

/% %.

,%/% While passing the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Court has found that neither the original GPA nor original report prepared by

5 Finger Print Bureau, Haryana, Madhuban, had seen the light of the day and that the thumb impressions of complainant and accused Gindori Devi were not obtained. It was further found that no efforts had been made to prove the duplicate of the report prepared by the Finger Print Bureau, Haryana, Madhuban. It is settled law that in cases relating to the offences of forgery, the original document(s) must be proved and in the absence of the primary evidence, the secondary evidence is to be led, but in the absence of following the said course of action, the finding of guilt cannot be returned on the basis of duplicate of the original document.

Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or material irregularity in the finding of the Appellate Court that there was nothing on record to show that any document was forged by the accused and that there was no iota of evidence that any alleged forged document was used by them in order to cheat the complainant.
:

 
 

 

!$ 

<$
 



 
) 
 


"


The revisional jurisdiction should be exercised in exceptional cases only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error of law resulting into flagrant miscarriage of justice.

In Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9) SCC 631, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of

/ the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."

Thus, I find that the findings given by the learned Appellate Court do not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 7

    

& 07.04.2022 (#1(
?

 
=#$@

A=1
?

 
) @


A=1