Criminal Revision No. 447 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 447 of 2006 Date of Decision: 1.3.2011. Sucha Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Lobana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chuahan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This complainant's revision is directed against the judgment dated September 20th, 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapurthala, whereby, respondents were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No.56 dated May 1st, 1999 under Section 379, 382 and 506/120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bholath. Allegations, in brief, against Dharam Singh aged 80 years and Rupinder Singh-respondents No.3 and 4 were that on the intervening night of April 21, 1999 they stole 10 bags of wheat lying in the field of Sucha Singh (PW-1). Allegations against Kuldip Singh and Ajmer Singh were that they instigated Dharam Singh and Rupinder Singh to take away the wheat. Indisputably, there was a dispute between Dharam Singh and Sucha Singh over the land from where the wheat was allegedly stolen by Dharam Singh and Rupinder. Dharam Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against Sucha Singh before the Civil Criminal Revision No. 447 of 2006 2 Court. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated September 4th, 1998. It was case of the prosecution that five bags of wheat were recovered from the possession of Dharam Singh but the same was found to be factually wrong because as per register No.19 of the Police Station Begowal, no wheat was recovered as deposed by Balwinder Singh, Constable (PW-5). Besides, the alleged occurrence took place on the intervening night of April 21st, 1999 but the matter was reported to the Police on May 1st, 1999, that is, after 10 days. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid factors, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents. Hence, the revision is dismissed. 1.3.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE