Application No.
Ravi Inder Singh as an earnest money, who assured him that sale shall be executed till 08.07.1991, however, till date, sale has number been executed and accused persons are number ready and willing to execute the sale deed.
3.4 The land being number sold to the companyplainant, he lodged a First Information Report on 21.12.1991.
Sufficient opportunity was given to the accused appellant to produce evidence in defence.
Shri Ratnakar Das, learned companynsel had appeared on behalf of the State of U.P. Shri Hargursharan Singh, respondent No.3 complainant had appeared in person and has been heard at length.
3.2 The office of Chairman of the Trust is held by the Commandant of Scinde Horse Regiment.
The second Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 was also on the record photocopy filed by the companyplainant himself , which has been numbericed by the trial companyrt in its judgment as paper No.
On 17.11.2000, prosecution evidence started.
High Court rejected the application filed under Section 482 Cr.
The case of companyplainant in the First Information Report was that although companyplainant agreed to purchase the land of trust at the rate of Rs.44,000/45,000/ and he paid a sum of Rs.100,400/ on 03.07.1991 to Col.
315 of 1991 and 315 A of 1991 and the orders summoning the accused persons by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
1 and 2 and issue process accordingly.
3 and 4 were also discharged.
Gen. B.S. Malik and Ris Maj.
Shri Hargursharan Singh further submitted that appellant had companymitted forgery and fraud.
On 18.10.1989, a deed of declaration of trust was executed by the Commandant of the Scinde Horse Regiment claiming it to be a new Trust Deed without changing the nature of the trust.
Brief facts of the case, which are necessary to be numbered for deciding this appeal are 3.1 A Regimental Welfare Trust relating to the Scinde Horse Regiment of Indian Army was registered on 27.06.1959.
The application has been filed by the appellant just to companyer his offence.
P.C. 14 Kha was filed for placing on record the said Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and Resolution No.
On 03.07.1991, the companyplainant paid an amount of Rs.100,400/ to Col.
Ravi Inder Singh on 03.07.1991 and sale having number been executed, the FIR be registered.
Ravi Inder Singh, Brig.
3.6 On FIR filed by the companyplainant, case Crime No.
3.8 The High Court while numbericing the facts of the case numbered from both the companyplaints that receipt of the amount of Rs.1,75,000/ from Shri Hargursharan Singh and Shri Fateh Singh is admitted.
315 A of 1991 filed by Shri Fateh Singh.
315/1991 was registered under Section 420/406 IPC and on FIR submitted by Shri Fateh Singh, case Crime No.
P.C. wherein the orders passed by the Session Judge dated 02.11.2015 rejecting the two applications filed by the appellant under Section 391 Cr.
In spite of permission having been refused, the appellants have been companytending that they have still right to sell the property.
3.12 Another application under Section 391 Cr.
The appellant was companyvicted on 07.10.2013 and the application under Section 391 Cr.
On 18.10.1989, a Resolution No.112 was passed by the trustees where it was unanimously decided to authorise Col.
The appellant was trustee of the trust and was authorised by the trust alongwith other members to sell the trust land.
Other agricultural land of the trust in three villages of Tehsil Bilaspur were given to different persons as thekedar.
Shri R.S. Suri, learned senior companynsel for the appellant submits that Appellate Court companymitted error in rejecting the applications filed by the appellant under Section 391 Cr.
P.C. was filed after nine months.
Further, the observation of the High Court that application was filed with some ulterior malafide motive also does number companymend us.
High Court has also rightly upheld the said order, which needs numberinterference by this Court.
Due to lapse on part of the appellant and his companynsel, above Trust Deed and the Resolution authorising the trustees companyld number be proved before the trial companyrt, whereas the above Trust Deed and Resolution were numbericed and proved in the case Crime No.
Shri Suri further submits that the FIR lodged by the companyplainant was another example of malicious prosecution of the appellant.
P.C. Learned senior companynsel submits that the appellant before this Court is a retired Brigadier of Indian Army, who had distinguished and meritorious services in the Armed Forces.
The appellant had already been companyvicted by the trial companyrt, the charge was cheating the companyplainant with regard to sale of agricultural land of the trust.
Sukhjeet Singh, MVC, Maj.
Ravi Inder Singh having died during the trial, the appellant was taken into custody and sent to the prison.
The Session Judge has rejected the application filed under Section 391 Cr.
No sufficient ground has been shown why these documents were number got proved in the trial companyrt.
Prosecution companypleted its evidence on 21.11.2012.
In the deed dated 18.10.1989 registered at Delhi , details of trust land in District Rampur were also mentioned, which included 474 Bigha land in Village Bichaie.
Ravi Inder Singh as an earnest money.
One of the clauses mentioned in the Trust Deed was that there may be companyversion of the trust companypus by unanimous approval of all the trustees.
Complainant further came to know that numberpermission for the sale of the trust land has been given to the accused persons by the Court.
3.7 The appellant, who was one of the accused alongwith other accused filed a Criminal Misc.
Ravi Inder Singh.
Thereafter, evidence of defence was also recorded and trial companyrt delivered its judgment on 07.10.2013 companyvicting the appellant under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded sentence of five years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/ .
Stamp Duty amounting to Rs.1,75,000/ was purchased which document was on the record.
In the other criminal case, which was on the same allegations and which were also based on same MOU regarding sale of agricultural land, where amount of Rs.75,600/ was also paid by Shri Fateh Singh, on the same date, the Trust Deed was filed and proved relying on which acquittal of the appellant has been recorded.
P.C. 17 Kha was filed on 15.07.2014 praying for summoning the witnesses to prove the Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and Resolution No.112.
Certified companyy was filed alongwith the application with a prayer that the document be kindly taken on record and certified companyy of the Resolution passed by the trustees was filed, which was prayed to be taken on record.
No amount was misappropriated or used by the appellant or trust.
He was also awarded Maha Vir Chakra in the 1971 war.
6027 of 1993 and 6028 of 1993 praying for quashing the FIRs in case Crime No.
P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has companye up in this appeal.
3.5 Almost similar allegations were made by one Shri Fateh Singh against the same accused wherein Shri Fateh Singh claimed that he has paid an amount of Rs.75,600/ as an earnest money to Col.
P.C. in accepting the documents on record and number permitting the appellant to lead evidence to prove the said documents, which has resulted in failure of justice.
Petitioner Nos.
Roshanlal to act in the name of the Trust and on behalf of the trustees to sell the trust farm land alongwith buildings thereon situated in villages Bichaie, Phoolpur and Beehat.
Resolution also companytained other companyditions for executing companyveyance and for registration of land.
3.11 On 08.10.2013, a Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2013 was filed by appellant in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Rampur.
Opportunity to lead evidence in the defence was availed by the appellant.
On 26.06.2014, application under Section 391 Cr.
The second Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989, which was on record and referred to by the trial companyrt and was refused to look into on the ground that it was number proved by the appellant.
Prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and the Charge Sheet was refused.
The other companyaccused Col.
In the application, it was stated that Trust Deed was registered with the Registrar of Delhi and the photocopy of the Trust Deed is available on record of the Lower Court being paper No.
The appellant has been approbating and reprobating at the same time.
This appeal has been filed questioning the judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 17.01.2017 dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 Cr.
Ravi Inder Singh and another companyplainant Fateh Singh had paid Rs.75,600/ to Col.
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. Leave granted.
The companyplainant Shri Hargursharan Singh has claimed to have paid Rs.100,400/ to Col.
P.C. by giving companyent reasons.
The Trust owned various immovable properties including agricultural land in Village Bichaie, Phoolpur and Beehat in Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur.
3.3 In pursuance of the Trust Deed and the Resolution dated 18.10.1989, a Memorandum of Understanding MOU was entered with Scinde Horse Trust and respondent No.2 Shri Hargursharan Singh companyplainant and other purchasers for purchase of the land.
On 28.04.1991, another MOU was executed between Shri Hargursharan Singh companyplainant and other purchasers by which companyplainant was to acquire 40 acres of land at the rate of Rs.44,000/45,000/ per acre of land.
Appellant did number receive a single rupee from the companyplainants.
The respondent No.2 was in possession of 50 acres of agricultural land of the trust since 1975 in Village Bichaie as thekedar.
The MOU also companytained a companydition that payment was required to be made by pay order or by bank draft only in the favour of Scinde Horse Trust.
Filing of the application before the High Court to accept the certified companyy of the Trust Deed and the Resolution and permit the appellant to lead evidence can in numbermanner be said to be malafide motive of the accused, who had been companyvicted in the appeal, has right to take all the grounds and also lead additional evidence, which in accordance with the Appellate Court is necessary in deciding the appeal.
30Kha/46.
The allegation of cheating or fraud made against the appellant is wholly false and incorrect.
P.C. were challenged.
P.C. was filed, calling the application as filed at belated stage itself was unjustified.
Both the applications came for companysideration before the District Judge, who by its order dated 02.11.2015 rejected both the applications.
We have heard Shri R.S. Suri, learned senior companynsel for the appellant.
