In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 174 of 2008 Date of Decision:March 02, 2009 Saudagar Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. G.S.Chahal,Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Modi, Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Bhola Singh @ Rajinder Singh - respondent No. 2 was tried for an offence under Sections 379, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) in FIR No. 213 dated 25.6.2002 registered at Police Station, Barnala. Vide judgment and order dated 3.6.2006, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala acquitted and sentenced respondent No. 2 for an offence under Sections 379/420 IPC. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 2 has preferred an appeal. Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide judgment dated 25.9.2007 acquitted him of the charge framed Crl. Revision No. 174 of 2008 -2- against him. Hence the present revision petition by complainant- Saudagar Singh. Prosecution story, in brief, as notice by the appellate court in para 2 of its judgment is as under:- “As per the allegations of the prosecution, Saudagar Singh son of Hari Singh had submitted a complaint dated 8.5.2002 to S.S.P. Police District, Barnala against the accused alleging that he had gone to Libya about 10/12 years ago. He saved money with great difficulty. He has a family consisting of three daughters and two sons. The complainant saved money for the purpose of marriage of his daughters and he has no other source of income. During the absence of the complainant, the accused took Rs. 80,000/- in November 1997, from the wife of the complainant through Gurcharan Singh and Gurmail Singh by mortgaging 02 killas of land. The accused gave account for three crops. On 27.3.1998, he took another sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- was to be returned with interest @ 2% per month. The accused had also executed promissory note for the amount os Rs. 80,000/- and 1.40,000/- which was witnessed by Gurcharan Singh. The amounts were received by the accused in the absence of the complainant and his father Hari Singh. The daughters of the complainant represented to Gurcharan Singh that their Crl. Revision No. 174 of 2008 -3- grand father may be called, but Gurcharan Singh asked them not to do so by stating that Hari Singh will not allow to lend the money. It was further represented that they will gain money and the payment was made on the assurance of Gurcharan Singh, It has been further alleged that the marriage of two daughters of the complainant was fixed for 27 and 28 February, 2000. The complainant went to the house of Gurcharan Singh for the purpose of return of money from the accused. The amount was not returned and the complainant solemnized the marriage of his daughter with great difficulty. On 07.03.2000, the complainant along with accused, Karnail Singh, the brother of the complainant, Jora Singh and Gurchet Singh Lambardar came to the Court premises at Barnala for the purpose of executing fresh agreement and promissory note. They were sitting at the seat of the deed writer and the accused took both the promissory notes and slipped away in a maruti car which was lying near by. They kept on waiting for the accused till evening but he did not return back. The accused has also not returned the documents. On the third day, the complainant asked the accused about the promissory notes, but he did not gave any satisfactory reply. The complainant had reported the matter to Members of the Panchayat and respectable of the village, but to no effect. An inquiry into the matter was Crl. Revision No. 174 of 2008 -4- conducted and accordingly, the case was registered.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned appellate court noticed that there was delay of two years and two months' in submitting the complaint Ex. PA. It was observed that delay in lodging the complaint had not been successfully explained by the petitioner. As per the petitioner money, in question, had been borrowed from his wife by respondent No. 2, however, wife of the petitioner was not examined during trial nor her name was mentioned in the list of witnesses. Learned appellate court had rightly held that the wife of the petitioner was a material witness to depose with regard to the advancement of money by her to respondent No. 2. Her non examination during trial was fatal to the case of the petitioner. So far as PW-5 Gurcharan Singh is concerned, in whose presence the money in question, had been advanced to respondent No. 2, had deposed that the money in question, was not handed over to respondent No. 2 in his presence. In these circumstances, learned appellate court has rightly observed that the statement of Gurcharan Singh-PW-5 did not indicate that the amount was advanced by the wife of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 on his assurance. It was further observed by the appellate court that PW-2 Gurchet Singh did not support the prosecution case regarding theft of promissory notes. Learned appellate court has further observed that the execution of the promissory notes appears to be doubtful because no efforts were made by the petitioner to initiate any legal proceedings for recovering the amount mentioned in the promissory notes. Hence, the learned trial court had rightly acquitted respondent No. 2 of the charge framed against Crl. Revision No. 174 of 2008 -5- him. The impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 02, 2009 PARAMJIT