Crl. Revision No. 498 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.498 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.5.2011 Sampuran Singh ... Petitioner versus Satbir Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. ... JORA SINGH, J. Crl.Misc.No. 11247 of 2011 In view of allegation in the application, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the revision is condoned. Application is allowed. Crl.Revision No. 498 of 2011 Sampuran Singh filed this revision to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 5.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Vide judgment dated 14.1.2009 by CJM, Jalandhar, in FIR No.23 dated 24.1.2004 under Sections 406/420/467/471 IPC, PS Division No.4, Jalandhar, respondent-accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Judgment of acquittal by the trial Court was challenged by the petitioner but appeal was dismissed. Story, in brief, is that Jasbir Kaur daughter of petitioner was married with Satbir Singh in the year 1986. Jasbir Kaur was divorcee and respondent-accused was penniless and was doing nothing. Respondent- Crl. Revision No. 498 of 2011 (O&M) 2 accused is related to the petitioner and to settle Jasbir Kaur and respondent- accused, sufficient dowry was given. One shop in Bazar Sheikhan, Jalandhar, was purchased. Petitioner has financially helped the respondent- accused to carry on business. Respondent-accused started misappropriating and embezzling profits out of the earnings of the shop and started keeping separate account. Respondent-accused filed wrong income tax returns without the knowledge of Jasbir Kaur. Evidence was also fabricated. House No.270-A, Dilbagh Nagar, Jalandhar City, was also purchased by the respondent-accused in his own name after embezzling and misappropriating the earning from the shop. Later on, respondent-accused started pressurizing the petitioner and his daughter to transfer the shop in his favour. Civil suit was instituted. Divorce petition was also filed by the respondent-accused against Jasbir Kaur. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Respondent-accused was charged under Sections 406/420/467/471 IPC. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses. Respondent-accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then stated that case is false. Ultimately, respondent-accused was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Against the judgment of acquittal, appeal filed by the State was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Jasbir Kaur daughter of the petitioner was a divorcee. Respondent-accused is also Crl. Revision No. 498 of 2011 (O&M) 3 related to the petitioner and to settle respondent-accused and Jasbir Kaur, Jasbir Kaur was married with the respondent-accused in the year 1986. One shop was purchased for the respondent-accused to carry on business. Jasbir Kaur and respondent-accused were jointly carrying on business in the shop but out of funds of the shop, another house was purchased by the respondent-accused in his own name. Income tax returns were filed by the respondent-accused as Proprietor of the firm. In fact, he was not the Proprietor of the firm. Respondent-accused started black mailing the petitioner and his daughter for transfer of the shop in his favour. Civil suit was also instituted. Respondent-accused filed divorce petition. When respondent-accused was not the sole Proprietor of the firm, then there was no idea to file income tax returns as Proprietor of the firm. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that submission of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be not correct one. Consecutive judgments of acquittal of the respondent-accused. Petitioner and his daughter Jasbir Kaur appeared in Court. Both admitted that no salary was ever paid to the respondent-accused. No document on file to show that respondent-accused was acting as a Manager of the firm owned by Jasbir Kaur. In case, respondent-accused was not the Proprietor of the firm and was the Manager to carry on business on behalf of Jasbir Kaur, then salary should have been paid to him. In case, respondent-accused was not the sole Proprietor of the firm, then why no salary was being paid to him. Jasbir Kaur admitted that respondent-accused purchased a house for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.2,00,000/- was acquired by way of availing loan facility. Petitioner admitted that income from the shop was only Rs.1,000/- per month. Rs.1,000/- was being paid as rent. If income Crl. Revision No. 498 of 2011 (O&M) 4 from the shop was only Rs.1,000/- per month, then no question of misappropriation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Allegation of the prosecution was that respondent-accused represented himself to be the Proprietor of the firm, i.e., M/s Fancy Dupatta Centre. Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are the copies of income tax returns but the returns were not filed by the respondent-accused as Proprietor of M/s Fancy Dupatta Centre. Respondent-accused nowhere represented himself to be the Proprietor of M/s Fancy Dupatta Centre. In fact, he represented himself to be the Proprietor of another firm, namely, M/s Fancy Dupatta Centre and Cotton Clothes Shop. No evidence on file to show that M/s Fancy Dupatta Centre and M/s Fancy Dupatta Centre and Cotton Clothes Shop are one and the same. Jasbir Kaur had no concern with M/s Fancy Dupatta Centre. When M/s Fancy Dupatta Centre was different from M/s Fancy Dupatta Centre and Cotton Clothes Shop, then nothing to presume that respondent- accused represented himself to be the sole Proprietor of M/s Fancy Dupatta Centre while filing income tax returns. Income tax returns were filed by the respondent-accused. PW5 Amrik Lal, official of Income Tax Department, appeared in Court with record and stated that income tax returns filed by the respondent-accused were absolutely correct. In case respondent-accused filed income tax returns as Proprietor of the firm, then he cannot be held liable that funds of the firm were misappropriated or embezzled. Jasbir Kaur wife of respondent-accused appeared as PW8 and deposed qua lease deed (Ex.PW7/A) and income tax returns filed as Proprietor of the firm and purchase of house in the year 1986 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Jasbir Kaur when cross-examined, then in clear terms Crl. Revision No. 498 of 2011 (O&M) 5 admitted that house was purchased firstly in Dilbagh Nagar, Jalandhar City. Then after taking loan of Rs.2,00,000/-, they have purchased another house, where they lived together. When salary was not being paid to the respondent-accused as Manager of the firm, then trial Court has rightly opined that income tax returns were rightly submitted and no question of embezzlement. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by both the Courts below. Judgment of acquittal is not to be set aside lightly with a view that there is possibility of different view by the Appellate Authority. Judgment is to be set aside if the same is perverse and evidence was misread. When two views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. When possible view as per evidence on file was taken by the trial Court, then no ground to interfere . For the reasons recorded above, revision without merit is dismissed. 17.5.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE