IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No. 860 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 2, 2010 GURDEV SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. GG Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for respondents 2 & 3. Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The revision petition is directed against judgment of acquittal dated 12.12.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. The State has not come up in appeal against the acquittal and, hence, the complainant has filed the revision petition. The prosecution case, as projected before the trial court, was that an application was moved to the police for registration of case, on the allegations that the complainants are residents of different villages and were employees of M/s Pioneer Forest India Limited. The complainants were assigned the duty of collecting money from individuals and deposit Criminal Rev. No. 860 of 2007 2 the same with M/s Pioneer Forest India Limited. On receipt of money, receipts were issued by the company with the promise that on maturity, the depositors would be returned the money. The allegation is that after collection of the money by the complainants, the same was handed over to the respondents/accused. The acquittal has been recorded on the ground that no evidence was placed before the trial court so as to connect the respondents/accused with the alleged offences. The respondents/accused were not even directly involved with the transaction in regard to which the FIR was lodged. The respondents/accused were not in charge of the affairs of M/s Pioneer Forest India Limited. The amount deposited in the account of the company was to be returned by the company. The prosecution could not lead any evidence so as to satisfy the ingredients of Section 415, Indian Penal Code. There was no evidence available on record to show that the complainants had been deceived or had been dishonestly induced to deliver any property. The charge had been framed only under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, and therefore, the respondents/accused have been acquitted for lack of evidence in that context. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw the attention of the court towards any evidence or material that has not been considered by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further not been able to show perverse reading of evidence. I have also taken note of the fact that the depositors of money had not made any complaint. Criminal Rev. No. 860 of 2007 3 No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. February 2, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?