Criminal Revision No. 1839 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1839 of 2006 Date of Decision: 29.11.2011 Gurmail Singh ... Petitioner Versus Balwant Singh and Another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. MS. Gagan Mohini, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Gurmail Singh, complainant, has filed the present revision petition to assail acquittal of respondent No.1/accused Balwant Singh. On the application dated 16.10.1999, submitted by the petitioner, case FIR No. 274 dated 3.11.1999 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda, under Section 420 IPC against respondent No.1/accused Balwant Singh. In the FIR, it was stated that the respondent had executed two agreement to sell with different persons in respect of first floor of House No. 4281-A measuring 18 x 15½ feet, one of the agreements was executed with Inderjit Kaur, wife of the petitioner, against a total sale consideration of ` 1,30,000. A sum of ` 24,000 was paid to him as earnest money on 14.6.1999 in the presence Criminal Revision No. 1839 of 2006 2 of witnesses and a Deed Writer. The parties had agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 15.10.1999. It is stated that there are other co- sharers of the property and one share measuring 18x7 feet was in possession of Gurmail Singh, petitioner, as a tenant. The other agreement to sell was executed with Paramjit Singh alias Banti, Narinder Kumar alias Neeta and in pursuance thereof Balwant Singh accused/respondent No.1 had executed sale deed in their favour on 7.10.1999. A grievance of the petitioner has been rightly summed up by the trial Court in para 1 of its judgment and order dated 26.7.2005 and relevant portion thereof is as under:- “1...The facts clearly show that the accused have executed the agreement with two parties in order to commit fraud. Paramjit Singh, Narinder Singh and Balwant Singh alongwith 5 unidentified persons came there and threatened Gurmel Singh to throw the articles from the shop and with had results...” After conclusion of trial, the trial Judge, vide judgment dated 26.7.2005, held the respondent/accused Balwant Singh guilty of offence under Section 420 IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 2,000, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal. The Appellate Court after perusing the records of the case and relying upon various judgments came to conclusion that at the inception of the agreement, the accused had no dishonest intention and Criminal Revision No. 1839 of 2006 3 furthermore non-execution of the sale deed, in pursuance of the agreement to sell, amounts to breach of contract and it will fasten the accused with civil liability. Having returned the above said finding, the Appellate Court had recorded acquittal of the accused/respondent No.1. It cannot be said that the finding returned by the Appellate Court is perverse as the same is based upon appreciation of the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to advance any argument wherefrom it can be inferred that the Appellate Court has committed any irregularity. The Hon'ble Apex Court has taken consistent view in Mahendra Partap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707, D.Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196, Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2145 (V 60 C 352), Bansi Lal and others v. Laxman Singh, (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 444, Ramu alias Ram Kumar and Others v. Jagannath, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 181, Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1574 and Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907, that High Court will not re-evaluate or re-appreciate the evidence in Revisional Court to disturb the finding of the Court below in case acquittal is based on well founded reasons. Therefore, no interference is called for. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 29, 2011 “DK”