Criminal Revision No.1652 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1652 of 2003 Date of Decision 11.10.2010 Kanwal Pasrija ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Neha Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Four accused namely Kanwal Pasrija, Om Parkash Pasrija, Krishan Pasrija and Mehar Chand Pasrija were prosecuted for cheating at least twelve persons for lacs of rupees on the pretext of providing them employment. However, Mehar Chand died during the investigation, therefore, remaining three persons were challaned, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each under Section 420 IPC. But accused Om Parkash Pasrija and Krishan Pasrija were acquitted in appeal. In nutshell, the prosecution version is that Krishan Lal son of Pat Ram alongwith four more persons, preferred a complaint against the accused and their deceased father Mehar Chand by levelling allegations that they on the pretext of arranging employment in the Sugar Mill, Bhuna, cheated many people for lacs of rupees. The details of money given by some of the persons on the false promise are given as under:- Name Amount Date Krishan Lal s/o Pat Ram Rs.20,000/- 19.09.1991 Criminal Revision No.1652 of 2003 2 Krishan s/o Sarwan Rs.25,000/- 30.10.1991 Rohtash s/o Kurda Rs.25,000/- 19.09.1991 Shishpal s/o Parbhu Ram Rs.25,000/- 20.09.1991 Rohtash s/o Dharma Rs.25,000/- 20.09.1991 Besides, they cheated Manphool son of Gugan Ram, Om Parkash son of Het Ram, Nihal Singh son of Chet Ram, Mange Ram son of Surja Ram, Banwari Lal son of Luna, Partap son of Banwari, Ram Lal son of Dholu, Bhoop Singh son of Har Chand, Krishan Chand son of Nihal Singh, Rajbir son of Ram Chander, Dalip Singh son of Lal Chand, Gian Chand son of Nathu Ram, Krishan Chand son of Bije Ram and Sarjit son of Beg Raj. However, they neither arranged employment nor returned the money. On the basis of aforesaid statements and on the basis of investigation, made by D.S.P., challan against Kanwal Pasrija was presented in the Court. However, on the application filed by the State under Section 319 Cr.P.C., remaining three accused were also summoned and charge- sheeted The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined Krishan son of Sarwan Ram, Shispal son of Prabhu Ram (PW2), Rohtash Singh son of Kurda Ram (PW3), Mange Ram son of Surja Ram (PW4), Om Parkash son of Het Ram (PW5), Mange Ram, retired DSP (PW6) and Dharam son of Prabhu (PW7) When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. In defence, they produced the copies of the account books Ex.D1, certificate issued by Bhuna Co-operative Sugar Mill Mark-A. The trial ended in conviction of all the three accused. However, during appeal except Kanwal Pasrija, remaining two accused Criminal Revision No.1652 of 2003 3 were acquitted. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has vehemently contended that the evidence does not reveal the complicity of the accused in the crime. Even DSP Mange Ram had exonerated all the accused. None of the witnesses has stated anything if Kanwal Pasrija had received the money from the complainant or other witnesses. While developing the arguments further, it was urged that the witnesses have failed to establish if there was any inducement on the part of the accused with an intention to extract the money. They have nowhere stated that the money was handed over to the accused but they said that money was given to Krishan Kumar son of Pat Ram, who has intentionally been withheld by the prosecution. On hearing the contentions, it may be observed that in order to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC the prosecution is obliged to establish deception and also fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property,or (iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. The word 'cheating' in the Indian Penal Code is set-forth in two separate clauses of acts by which the person so deceived may be induced to do. In the first place, he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. The second class of acts set forth in the Section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. Criminal Revision No.1652 of 2003 4 In the first case, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest, in the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but may not be fraudulent or dishonest. In the instant case, the accused with an intention to cheat the complainant intentionally made false promise to provide them employment in the Sugar Mill, Bhuna, and induced them to deliver the money. Prosecution in order to establish the factum of cheating has examined twelve witnesses including five complainants. No doubt, some of the witnesses namely Krishan Lal son of Pat Ram, Arjun son of Het Ram and Nihal Singh son of Chet Ram were given up as unnecessary whereas Partap Singh as won over yet the remaining witnesses have supported the prosecution case. All the witnesses namely Krishan son of Sarwan Ram, Shish Pal son of Prabhu Ram, Rohtash Singh son of Kurda Ram, Om Parkash son of Het Ram, Mange Ram, retired DSP and Dharam son of Prabhu have stated that the accused Kanwal Pasrija with the connivance of the other accused had cheated them for heavy amount on the pretext of providing them employment. However, Krishan (PW1) and Shish Pal (PW2) during cross-examination have stated that they had handed over the money to Krishan Son of Pat Ram. If we read the statement of these two witnesses in entirety, they never denied having made the payment. They meant to say that the matter was settled with the accused and accordingly they had handed over the money to Kanwal Pasrija through Krishan Kumar son of Pat Ram. However, Rohtash Kumar (PW3) and Mange Ram (PW4) have categorically stated that they had handed over the money to Kanwal Pasrija. The witnesses are so truthful that they did not feel shy of saying that the accused had returned some amount out of that also. It is also not essential to delve deep into the evidence particularly when there are specific Criminal Revision No.1652 of 2003 5 findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused, returned by both the Courts below. The inference at this revisional stage, as determined by the Apex Court from time to time, is severely restricted and the same could be made only when there was defect in procedure or trial, glaring mistake apparent on the record, resulting into miscarriage of justice. It is also settled that the re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the revisional stage. But nothing such was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. The Appellate Court, while dealing with the issue with regard to cheating, has rightly placed reliance on the judgments Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma versus State of Bihar reported in 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 484 (SC), G.V.Rao versus L.H.V.Prasad 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 290 (SC) and Jaswantra Manilal Akhaney vs. State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 575 . In order to record the conviction of the accused under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution was to establish the guilty, intention to grab the money, the necessary inducement with a promise, to do an act which they knew that they should not do and compelled them to part with the money, stand established in this case. No plausible defence has been led. As regards the quantum of sentence, the accused were out of such persons, who believe in becoming rich overnight by looting the people on false pretext and induced the innocent unemployed persons to part with huge sums of money and they instead of making sources for their employment rendered them hungry, naked, helpless beggars. Their eyes remain dazzled and stunned. Sometimes those people arrange money by taking loans at high rate of interest. However, whatever may be in their hands was taken away by such fraudulent persons at one stroke, therefore, to Criminal Revision No.1652 of 2003 6 extend mercy or leniency to such people would amount to promoting fraud and beggary. Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.10.2010 mamta-II