IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.80 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 19, 2010 MOHAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The complainant has filed this petition against judgment of acquittal dated 12.3.2009, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar. The allegation made by the complainant, in brief, is that respondent No.2 accepted Rs.5,10,000/- for sending Sanjiv Singh son of the complainant to Australia. As per the case set up by the complainant, the money was given in instalments. Acquittal has been recorded for the reason that the relevant particulars of transaction i.e. date and time of making the payment to respondent No.2, have not been given. It has further been concluded by the trial court that the statement of PW-1/complainant was discrepant from the Criminal Rev. No.80 of 2010 2 statement of PW-2 Om Parkash. The trial court has also considered that the Investigating Agency did not collect any evidence in regard to the source of payment made by the complainant. The complainant, on his part, has not proved the source of his money. Considering the above, respondent No.2 has been acquitted while holding that the evidence was not sufficient to conclude that respondent No.2 had committed an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not drawn the attention of the court towards any evidence that has been ignored by the trial court. The learned counsel has further not been able to show that any piece of evidence has been perversely read or considered. In view of the above, no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. February 19, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?