CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-1- 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 

AT CHANDIGARH  

241 

                    CRR-1977-2017 (O&M) 

Date of Decision: 20.11.2025 

Veena Gupta and another                      

                ...Petitioner(s)  

                            VERSUS 

Sri Chand Suneja and others.    

      ...Respondent(s)    

CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  VINOD S. BHARDWAJ 

Present :-_   Mr. Kewal Krishan, 

Advocate, for  

Mr. Vivek  Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). 

    Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.  

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.(Oral)   

CRM-20701-2017 

Application  is  allowed  as  prayed  for  subject  to  all  just 

exceptions.  

Main case 

     This  revision  petition  has  been  preferred  by  the  complainant 

against the judgment dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions 

Judge, Faridabad as well as the judgment dated 24.03.2014 passed by the 

Judicial  Magistrate  First  Class,  Faridabad,  acquitting  the  respondents-

accused in Case bearing No.169/1 dated 17.12.2008/28.06.2013 arising out 

of  FIR No.199 dated  06.06.2008,  under  Sections  419, 420, 467,  471  and 

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-2- 

120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 7, 

Faridabad.  

2    Tersely, the facts of the present case are that the above FIR was 

registered on the complaint dated 10.01.2007 of Smt. Veena Gupta and R.K. 

Gupta, who are residents of England and claimed that they are lawful owners 

of plot no. D-31, measuring 485.6 sq. yards situated at Model Town, DLF 

Area,  Sector  11,  Faridabad.  This  plot  was  purchased  by  them  from  one 

Balraj Singh son of Avtar Singh Bihala, lawful attorney of Devender Singh 

son of Avtar Singh Bihala, for a sale consideration of Rs. 60,700/- vide a 

duly executed and stamped receipt dated 22.02.1989 and conveyance deed 

No. 1226 dated 27.07.1989, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi. 

After purchase of this plot, complainant(s) went to England as Veena Gupta 

was settled there. On 01.12.2006, complainant came to India on a short visa 

and visited the said plot for raising construction thereon and was astonished 

to know that a building had been raised over the plot of complainant by 

some strangers. On enquiry and going through the record, it was revealed 

that  respondent-accused  no.1-S.C.  Suneja  son  of  L.C.  Suneja  had  got  a 

general power of attorney executed and registered in his favour in respect of 

the said  plot  in  the office  of  Sub-Registrar,  Faridabad on 08.07.1996,  by 

hatching a criminal conspiracy with accused-Rajesh (who was convicted by 

Addl.  Sessions  Judge,  Faridabad),  Hoshiar  Singh  Saini,  document  writer, 

Smt. Tarun Suneja wife of S.C. Suneja, Jai Ram Sharma, document writer. 

Some lady was produced in place of complainant-Veena Gupta for executing 

this general power of attorney by impersonation. On 08.07.1996, when this 

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-3- 

power  of  attorney  was  executed,  complainant  was  in England  and  S.C. 

Suneja, who is not known to complainant, further appointed C.L. Kalra son 

of  Khillu  Ram  as  special  power  of  attorney  which  was  registered  in  the 

office of Sub-Registrar, Faridabad on 30.04.1997 and this plot was further 

sold to different purchasers and a building was illegally constructed on the 

plot of complainant, who was cheated and defrauded by aforesaid persons by 

grabbing  her  land  on  the  basis  of  sham,  bogus,  forged  and  fabricated 

documents.  

3    During investigation, the accused were arrested. The matter was 

thoroughly investigated and statement of the witnesses was recorded. After 

completion of investigation, challan was presented before the learned Illaqa 

Magistrate for trial.  

4    Initially the challan was filed only against Rajesh but thereafter, 

a  supplementary  challan  was  presented  against  Sri  Chand  Suneja,  Tarun 

Suneja, Hoshiyar Singh Saini, Chunni Lal, Bhajan Lal and Chetan Swaroop 

Sharma on 20.11.2009 under Sections 419,420,467, 468,471,120-B,34 IPC 

5 Copies of police challan were supplied to the respondents-

accused free of cost. On finding a prima facie case for the commission of

offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B the respondents-

accused were charged, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6 In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the

following five witnesses:-

PW-1  SI Kuldeep Singh 

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-4- 

PW-2  Head Constable Satbir Singh  

PW-3  Inspector/SHO Sripal  

PW-4  Sri Prakash Chand ARC 

PW-5  R.K.Gupta husband of complainant Veena Gupta.   

7    Evidence  of  the  prosecution  was  closed  by  Court order  on 

12.02.2014. 

8 The statement of the respondent-accused were recorded under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all incriminating

circumstances and evidence appearing on record were put to them. However,

they denied all allegations and pleaded that they have been implicated in a

false case. However, no evidence was led by defence in their favour.

9 After hearing the case and considering the arguments advanced

by both sides, the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence placed on

record, the Trial Court vide judgment dated 24.03.2014, acquitted all the

accused of the charges framed against them.

10 Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal of all the

accused, complainant and her husband preferred Criminal Appeal No. 108

dated 05.06.2014 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge,

Faridabad. Vide judgment dated 06.02.2017, the said appeal was partly

allowed and the findings recorded by the trial Court against the respondents-

accused herein namely Sri Chand, Tarun Suneja, Hoshiyar Singh, Chuni

Lal, Bhajan Lal and C.S. Sharma, acquitting them of the charges framed

against them were upheld, however, the findings recorded by the trial Court

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-5- 

regarding accused Rajesh were set aside being not sustainable and he was

held guilty for the commission of offences under Sections, 467, 468, and 471

of the IPC. He was sentenced as under: -

Name of

appellant

Offence u/s Period of

sentence (RI)

Amount/Fine

(in Rs.)

Period of

sentence in

default of

payment of

fine (SI)

Rajesh 467 IPC 7 years Rs.10,000/- 20 days

468 IPC 5 years Rs.5,000/- 15 days

471 IPC 5 years Rs.5,000/- 15 days

11    Aggrieved  of  the  aforesaid,  the  instant  revision  petition  has 

been filed by the complainant.  

12    Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  has  argued that  both  the 

Courts  have  failed  to  appreciate  that  the  GPA/SPA  executed  by  the 

respondents  are  forged  and  that  the  sale  deeds  registered  on  the  basis  of 

these have been held to be null and void by the Civil Court vide judgment 

dated  09.07.2015  being  forged  and  fabricated.  He  submits  that  once  it  is 

established  by  leading  evidence  that  the  GPA/SPA  were  forged,  the 

respondents-accused were liable to be convicted. He submits that both the 

Courts have failed to take into consideration the disclosure statements made 

by  the respondents which  amount to  admission of guilt  on their part.  He 

further submits that the respondents-accused have not led any evidence in 

their defence, which shows their involvement in the forgery and fabrication 

of GPA/SPA and as such the Courts have done grave error in acquitting the 

respondents-accused.  

 13    State  counsel,  on  the  other  hand,  reiterates  the  submissions 

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-6- 

made before both the Courts which are not being reiterated here, for the sake 

of brevity. 

14    Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents-accused submits that  the 

findings  recorded  by  the  trial  Court  are  based  on  correct  appreciation  of 

evidence led before it. He submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its 

case  against  the  respondents-accused.  The  complainant  failed  to  lead  any 

evidence before the trial Court and the evidence of the prosecution had to be 

closed by Court order which shows that there was no evidence against the 

respondents  on  the basis  whereof they ought to have  been  convicted. He 

submits  that  the  findings  of  acquittal  recorded  by the  trial  Court  qua  the 

respondents-accused have been upheld by the appellate Court in the appeal 

preferred by the complainant as such the present revision also deserves to be 

dismissed.  

15     I  have  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the 

respective parties and have also gone through the judgments passed by both 

the learned Courts below. 

 16    Before  proceeding  further  into  the  matter,  it is  necessary  to 

make a reference to the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court. 

The relevant part thereof reads thus:- 

“7 This case has been registered against the

respondents/accused on the complaint Ex.PW5/A made by

complainant Veena Gupta and Rajinder Kumar Gupta i.e

appellants on the allegations that all the respondents in

criminal conspiracy with each other on the basis of forged

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-7- 

Power of Attorney Ex. PW4/C dated 8.7.1996 in favour of

respondent S.C.Suneja sold and resold her plot no. D/31

measuring 485.6 sq. yards situated at Model Town, DLF Area,

Sector/11, Faridabad and also respondent S.C. Suneja had

fraudulently executed another Power of Attorney in favour of

respondent C.L. Kalra who thereafter resold the plot. In order

to prove its case the prosecution has examined total five

witnesses and after appreciating the prosecution evidence on

record the trial court however due to non/examination of

appellant Veena Gupta, in the absence of original Power of

Attorney (in favour of respondent/accused S.C. Suneja) copy of

which was placed on record as Ex. PW4/C and due to non

examination of subsequent purchaser Parmod Mangla held the

prosecution evidence to be not trustworthy and thus acquitted

the respondents/accused in this case.

8 In order to prove the complaint on the basis of which this

case has been registered the prosecution has examined

R.K.Gupta as PW5 who is husband of appellant Smt. Veena

Gupta. In his testimony PW5 has reiterated all the allegations

contained in the complaint and has also identified his as well as

signature of Veena Gupta on complaint and also proved the

complaint as Ex.PW5/A. As mentioned above though the trial

court did not take into consideration the said complaint Ex.

PW5/A due to non examination of appellant Veena Gupta

however, since the complaint PW5/A has also been signed by

her husband Rajinder Kumar Gupta i.e PW5 it would be safe to

hold that the prosecution has duly proved the complaint on

record.

9. In para no. 3 of complaint PW5/A it had been alleged that

respondent/accused S.C. Suneja in criminal conspiracy with

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-8- 

respondent/accused Rajesh and Jai Ram Sharma had forged the

Power of Attorney dated 8.7.1996 by producing some fake lady

Veena Gupta as appellant though on the said date the

complainant was in England and never came to India at

Faridabad nor the said Power of Attorney carry her signature

nor she knows S.C. Suneja. As such the prosecution was to

prove that the Power of Attorney dated 8.7.1996 had been

fraudulently prepared by respondents S.C. Suneja, Rajesh and

J.R. Sharma in criminal conspiracy with each other. It is

relevant to mention here that though the respondent S.C. Suneja

and Rajesh were arrayed as accused by the police but J.R.

Sharma who as per complaint Ex. PW5/A was also involved

with the aforesaid accused was not arrayed as accused by the

police in the report under section 173 Cr.P.C.

10. In order to prove the alleged GPA in the name of

respondent/accused S.C. Suneja to be fake the prosecution had

examined PW4 Parkash ARC in the office of Sub Registrar,

Faridabad who brought the summoned record and has proved

the copy of alleged fake GPA dated 8.7.1996 as Ex. PW4/C. He

has also proved copy of sale deed Ex. PW4/A vide which the

respondent/accused S.C.Suneja being GPA holder of Veena

Gupta had executed the sale deed in favour of one Surjan Dass

and copy of sale deed Ex.PW4/B vide which C.L.Kalra in whose

favour the respondent/accused S.C.Suneja had executed a

Special Power of Attorney sold the disputed plot to one Meena

Devi. As mentioned earlier though the trial court had expressed

its inability to consider the fake GPA dated 8.7.1996 Ex.PW4/C

by observing that original GPA has not been placed on record

by the prosecution and that in order to prove that said General

Power of Attorney does not bear the signature of Veena Gupta

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-9- 

ought to have seek report from FSL, Madhuban but as

mentioned above since PW4 who brought the original record

has proved the copy of GPA Ex.PW4/C on record in the

considered opinion of this court the trial court has erred in not

taking into consideration the GPA Ex.PW4/C which has been

duly proved on record. For the same reasons the trial court

ought to have taken into consideration the copies of sale deeds

Ex.PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B respectively proved on record by

PW4. Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that on 9.4.2009

when respondent/accused C.S. Sharma was produced before

learned Ilaqa Magistrate for remand an application was moved

before trial court seeking the specimen signatures and

handwriting of C.S.Sharma and on the same day respondent

C.S.Sharma had suffered a statement admitting his signatures

on GPA dated 8.7.1996 i.e Ex.PW4/C and the said statement

dated 9.4.2009 is a part of judicial record.

11. In cross/examination though PW5 has admitted that Ex.

PW4/C (i.e GPA dated 8.7.1996) was not executed in his

presence and he had also expressed his ignorance by whom and

where it was prepared but in cross examination no suggestion

has been put to PW5 that the said GPA Ex.PW4/A had been

signed by his wife viz appellant Veena Gupta nor any

suggestion puť to him that the photograph visible on Ex.PW4/C

is that of his wife or that she had got prepared the same. It is

now to be seen what evidence had been adduced by the

prosecution to connect the respondents/accused S.C.Suneja,

Rajesh and C.S. Sharma with the said alleged Power of

Attorney. From perusal of Ex.PW4/C it is revealed that beside

alleged Veena Gupta, respondent/accused C.S. Sharma

(attesting witness no. 2), and Jai Ram Sharma (as Document

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-10- 

Writer) it also carry the signatures of respondent/accused

Rajesh (as witness no. 1). But it does not carry the signature of

respondent S.C. Suneja. PW3 Sri Pal is the Investigating Officer

in this case who during his testimony has corroborated the

testimony of PW2 qua the disclosure statements Ex. PW2/A and

Ex. PW2/B respectively of respondent/accused Rajesh as well

as recovery memo Ex.PW2/C vide which as per him

photocopies of two receipts were got recovered by accused

Rajesh in pursuance to his disclosure statement. He has also

proved the disclosure statements Ex.PW3/A suffered by

S.C.Suneja and Tarun Suneja as well as recovery memo PW3/B.

He has also proved the disclosure statement Ex.PW3/C of

respondent/accused Chuni Lal.

12. As in pursuance to the disclosure statement Ex. PW2/B

suffered by respondent/accused Rajesh vide recovery memo Ex.

PW2/C he got recovered two photo copies of payment receipts

dated 19.6.1996 and 6.7.1996 and also the original receipts of

said photocopies got recovered by respondent Rajesh had been

taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW3/B

from respondents S.C. Suneja and Tarun Suneja the said

receipts can be taken into consideration. From perusal of

receipt dated 19.6.1996 it is revealed that it is qua payment of

Rs. 3 lacs by respondent/accused S.C.Suneja regarding sale of

disputed plot and it bears the signature of respondent/accused

Rajesh on the stamp affixed on the same to which one Vijay

Kumar is a witness thereof. The second receipt is dated

6.7.1996 qua payment of Rs.one lac from respondent/accused

S.C.Suneja of disputed plot and it is mentioned therein that

payment of Rs.4 lacs received and it bears only the signatures

of respondent/accused Rajesh. As the aforesaid payment

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-11- 

receipts had been got recovered by respondent./accused Rajesh

in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/A they can be

read against him. It is further relevant to mention here that

though in his disclosure statement Ex.PW2/A

respondent/accused Rajesh had stated that for GPA (i.e Ex.

PW4/C) Vijay (witness of first receipt) produced a lady whose

name he disclosed as Veena and GPA dated 8.7.1996 (i.e

Ex.PW4/C) was executed in favour of S.C. Suneja on which he

along C.S. Sharma, Advocate put their signatures as witnesses

and he also disclosed that on the asking of Vijay Taneja he gave

the receipt regarding disputed plot but as the second receipt of

Rs. 4 lacs bears the signatures only of respondent Rajesh it can

not be taken that he had not received Rs. 4 lacs only on the

asking of witness Vijay Taneja who admittedly has died.

13. In view of the disclosure staternent Ex. PW2/A duly proved

on record by PW2 since both the receipts bear the signatures of

respondent/accused Rajesh the fact that respondent/accused

Rajesh received a sum of Rs. 4 lacs against sale of disputed plot

from respondent S.C. Suneja stands proved. Further since the

GPA Ex.PW4/C also carry the signature of respondent/accused

Rajesh as witness no. 1 it stands proved that the

respondent/accused Rajesh firstly received the sale amount of

Rs. 4 lacs vide two receipts from respondent S.C. Suneja and

then got prepared the forged GPA Ex. PW4/C in favour of

respondent/accused S.C.Suneja as the payment receipts vide

which respondent/accused Rajesh accepted a sum of Rs. 4 lacs

from respondent/accused S.C.Suneja bear the date 19.6.1996

and 6.7.1996 i.e prior to the execution of forged Power of

Attorney Ex. PW4/C i.e 8.7.1996. The Power of Attorney Ex.

PW4/C do not carry the signatures of respondent/accused

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-12- 

S.C.Suneja. Also from the disclosure statement Ex. PW2/A of

respondent/accused Rajesh it can not be inferred that the fact

that Veena Gupta allegedly produced by one Vijay is not the

actual Veena Gupta was in the knowledge of

respondent/accused S.C.Suneja. In view of above and as there is

no evidence on record to prove alleged criminal conspiracy

between the respondent/accused Rajesh and S.C.Suneja it

would be safe to conclude that from prosecution evidence on

record the involvement only of the respondent/accused Rajesh

in preparation of fake Power of Attorney Ex. PW4/C stands

proved. Also there is no prosecution evidence on record qua

role of C.S. Sharma whose name is mentioned on the Power of

Attorney Ex. PW4/C as witness no. 2. Therefore, from the

prosecution evidence on record except for the specific role of

respondent Rajesh there is no cogent evidence against S.C.

Suneja and C.S. Sharma qua preparation of fake GPA Ex.

PW4/C.

14. Learned counsel for respondents have relied upon authority

Jaisingh & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) where it has

been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that a reversal of the trial

court's judgment should be made in cases where the view taken

was not possible on the evidence or perverse with the broad

under standing that if two views were possible, the one taken by

the trial court in favour of the accused should be retained. In

the authority Arulvelu & another Vs. State represented by the

Public Prosecutor & another (supra) it has been held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court that an order of acquittal should not be

lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is

some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused.

However, in the aforesaid authority it has also been held by the

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-13- 

Hon'ble Apex Court that the power of reviewing evidence is

wide and the appellate court can re/appreciate the entire

evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion

with respect of both facts and law but the appellate court must

give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial

court.

15. It is relevant to mention here that admittedly in the civil suit

instituted by appellant Veena Gupta against some of the

respondents she had challenged the sale deeds executed qua the

disputed plot on the basis of fake Power of Attorney in the name

of respondent S.C. Suneja beside the GPA dated 8.7.1996 (i.e

Ex. PW4/C) and that all the sale deeds which had been executed

on the basis of said GPA Ex. PW4/C had been declared illegal,

null and void by the civil court. The above referred authorities

relied upon by learned counsel for respondents are not

applicable to this case as while passing the impugned judgment

the trial court has failed to make any observation how the

testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW5 respectively as well as

recovery of receipts got effected by respondent/accused Rajesh

are not believable and in the absence of any such finding this

court had to reappreciate the entire evidence on record. So far

as the authorities Iqbal Singh Marwah @ Anr. Vs. Meenakshi

Marwah & Anr. 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 178, Budh Ram Vs.

State of Haryana 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 352 and Md. Ibrahim

& Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Aur 2009(4) RCR(Criminal) 369

relied upon by learned counsel for respondents are concerned

they are of no help being distinguishable on facts.

16. So far as the allegations of criminal conspiracy cheating or

fraud etc against the remaining respondents/asccused namely

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-14- 

Sri Chand, Tarun Suneja, Hoshiyar Singh, Chuni Lal, Bhajan

Lal and C.S. Sharma are concerned, nothing has come in the

prosecution on record as to when and where they had allegedly

conspired for preparation of GPA Ex. PW4/C. Further though

the complainant had also alleged that respondent/accused S.C.

Suneja had fraudulently prepared SPA in favour of C.L.Kalra

and his wife but the said SPA has not been produced/proved on

record.

17. In view of above discussion, this court is of the considered

view that so far as the findings recorded by the trial court

against respondents namely Sri Chand, Tarun Suneja, Hoshiyar

Singh, Chuni Lal, Bhajan Lal and C.S. Sharma are concerned,

they are correct and are therefore upheld whereas the findings

recorded by the trial court qua respondent/accused Rajesh are

not sustainable and are hereby set aside as the prosecution has

been able to prove its case against respondent/accused Rajesh

beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Therefore he is hereby

held guilty for committing the offences under sections 467,468

and 471 IPC.”

17 Thus, it is evident that due to non-examination of complainant

Veena  Gupta,  the  absence  of  original  Power  of  Attorney  (in  favour  of 

respondent S.C. Suneja) copy of which was placed on record as Ex. PW4/C 

and due to non-examination of subsequent purchaser Parmod Mangla, the

prosecution evidence was held to be not trustworthy. It has been further

noticed that the Power of Attorney Ex. PW4/C did not carry the signatures 

of respondent/accused S.C. Suneja. Also from the disclosure statement Ex. 

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-15- 

PW2/A of respondent/accused Rajesh, it could not be inferred that Veena 

Gupta,  allegedly  produced  by  one  Vijay  was  not  the real  Veena  Gupta 

and/or  that  this  fact  was  to  the  knowledge  of  respondent/accused 

S.C.Suneja.  Hence, it was specifically recorded that there is no evidence 

on  record  to  prove  criminal  conspiracy  between  the respondent/accused 

Rajesh and S.C. Suneja and from the prosecution evidence on record, only 

the respondent/accused Rajesh’s involvement  in preparation of fake Power 

of  Attorney  Ex.  PW4/C  stands  proved.  There  is  no  cogent  evidence  on 

record qua role of C.S. Sharma whose name is mentioned on the Power of 

Attorney Ex. PW4/C as witness no. 2 and S.C. Suneja qua preparation of 

fake GPA Ex. PW4/C. Appellate Court  also took note of the fact that in 

the civil suit instituted by Veena Gupta against some of the respondents, 

she had challenged the sale deeds executed qua the disputed plot on the 

basis of fake Power of Attorney in the name of respondent S.C. Suneja 

instead  the GPA  dated 8.7.1996  (i.e Ex.  PW4/C)  and hence all the sale 

deeds that had been executed on the basis of said GPA Ex. PW4/C had 

been declared illegal, null and void by the civil court.  

 18    Thus  after  appreciating  the  entire  evidence  as  well  as  the 

documents on record, the appellate Court concluded  that the allegations of 

criminal conspiracy, cheating ,fraud etc. against the respondents/accused Sri 

Chand,  Tarun  Suneja,  Hoshiyar  Singh,  Chuni  Lal,  Bhajan  Lal  and  C.S. 

Sharma were not made out as nothing had come on record as to when and 

where they had allegedly conspired for preparation of GPA Ex. PW4/C and 

that  even  though  the  complainant  had  alleged  that  respondent/accused 

CRR-1977-2017 (O&M)          

-16- 

S.C.Suneja had fraudulently prepared SPA in favour of C.L.Kalra and his 

wife but the said SPA has not been produced/proved on record. 

19    It is also noticed that accused Rajesh against whom finding of 

conviction had been recorded by the appellate Court had also filed a revision 

before  this  Court  bearing  CRR  No.535  of  2017.  Vide judgment  dated 

16.05.2017 passed by this Court, the said revision petition was accepted and 

the judgment of Appellate Court upholding his conviction was set aside.   

20    In view of above, it cannot be held that there is any illegality,

perversity or mis-appreciation of evidence by both the Courts. In the absence

of any of the above the High Court would not re-examine the entire evidence

and re-start the trial exercising powers under its revisional jurisdiction.  

21    In view of above, the present revision petition is dismissed.  

22    Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed 

of accordingly.  

November 20, 2025.        (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 

raj arora                                            JUDGE 

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No