Criminal Revision No.1458 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1458 of 2005 Date of Decision 01.11.2010 Narinder Kumar ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 420 IPC and the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.07.2005, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur. In nutshell, the facts are that Joginder Singh complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') was induced by the accused to part with a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, as per following details, for sending him to Germany:- Date Amount 22.10.1991 Rs.10,000/- 18.06.1992 Rs.1,10,000/- 15.03.1993 Rs.80,000/- While elaborating, it has been stated that initially a sum of Criminal Revision No.1458 of 2005 2 Rs.1,10,000/- was given to the accused for sending him to Germany but instead of sending him there he was sent to Moscow from where he again cheated the complainant stating that he could send him to Germany on payment of Rs.80,000/-, therefore, a sum of Rs.80,000/- were again paid to the accused to do the needful. However, he was neither sent to Germany nor the amount was returned. On the aforesaid complaint made by the complainant on 22.02.1995 before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Cantt., FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered and the case was investigated. Completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Charge was framed against the accused for the aforesaid offence to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined four witnesses in all. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, he examined two witnesses. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also did not succeed. The crucial question, to be determined in the case is “whether the complainant was cheated by the accused ?” The said point in issue was proved by the prosecution by examining the complainant Joginder Singh (PW1), who gave minute details of the facts, stating that accused Narinder Singh made a false promise to send him to Germany and induced him to part with a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- but he instead of sending him to Germany, sent him to Moscow and from Moscow he again demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- so that he could be sent to Germany from there. His version stands Criminal Revision No.1458 of 2005 3 corroborated by Shawinder Singh (PW4), who has deposed that his brother wanted to go to Germany for which he contacted Narinder Kumar and on promise to send him to Germany, he received a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- in the presence of Manjit Singh Manna and daughter of Bhajan Singh but instead of sending him to Germany, he sent him to Moscow. He further reiterated that when his brother was at Moscow, again the accused demanded the money to send him to Germany which was paid to him. However, after staying for seven months in Moscow, Joginder Singh came back. He was neither returned the money nor he was sent to Germany. The argument is that when the complainant was abroad then how could he be asked to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- on 15.03.1993 and why he would pay him the said amount when he had not fulfilled his promise. This ambiguity has been explained by Shawinder Singh (PW4), who has stated that he had received a telephonic message from Joginder Singh from Moscow that Narinder Singh was demanding a sum of Rs.80,000/- for sending him to Germany (i.e. to his destination) then he arranged the said amount and paid the same to the accused. Both the Courts below have examined the statements of Joginder Singh (PW1), Manjit Singh (PW2) and Shawinder Singh (PW4) and has categorically reached the conclusion that they were quite reliable witnesses and their credibility could not be impeached. The minor discrepancies were bound to occur in the statements of truthful witnesses. In any case, both the Courts below have duly appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. Now reappreciation of evidence at this revisional stage is impermissible. No such defect or manifest error apparent on the record has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner which may result into miscarriage of justice. The defence, as set up by the Criminal Revision No.1458 of 2005 4 accused, does not help him. Be that it may, the accused was in custody of Inspector, CIA Staff, Kapurthala and the Warrant Officer RL.Bhatia got Banarsi Dass released but that plea, as set up by the accused, is quite unconnected with the present occurrence. Assuming that the accused had visited the CIA Staff, Kapurthala in the year 1994 but the same does not provide a plausible defence to the accused as he having been aggrieved by the acts of the accused might have gone to set the law in motion, as such the defence, set up by the accused, does not help his case. Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 01.11.2010 mamta-II