248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1510 of 2022 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Sukhminder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present :- Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab. ***** H.S.GREWAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present revision-petition has been filed for seeking setting aside the judgment dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, as well as the judgment dated 15.05.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-State has been wrongly dismissed and the accused/respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 448 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has filed the present revision-petition against the judgment of acquittal, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court. The petitioner failed to prove that the Will allegedly executed by the testator, namely, Sahib Singh @ Baljit Singh, was forged. Neither was any handwriting expert examined nor were the SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR No.1510 of 2022 -2- disputed signatures compared by any expert. Further, no witness was examined to establish the said allegation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below have erred in law as well as on facts in acquitting the accused/respondents. It is submitted that the Will allegedly executed by the testator, namely, Sahib Singh @ Baljit Singh, is a forged and fabricated document and that the findings recorded by the Courts below are wrong. It is, therefore, prayed that both the impugned judgments be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that no cogent evidence or witness was produced to establish the allegation of forgery. It is, therefore, submitted that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded well-reasoned findings of acquittal, which do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present revision-petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the prosecution failed to establish that the Will allegedly executed by the testator, namely, Sahib Singh @ Baljit Singh, was forged or fabricated. No handwriting expert was examined, nor was any cogent evidence led to prove the allegation of forgery. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR No.1510 of 2022 -3- 7. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. (H.S.GREWAL) 27.07.2026 JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment