Criminal Revision No.1105 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1105 of 2008 Date of decision: 29.01.2009 Paramdeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus Deepinder Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vikram Chaudhari Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 13.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar, whereby Deepinder Singh-respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 328 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short- “IPC”) The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The case of the prosecution briefly is that Paramdeep Criminal Revision No.1105 of 2008 2 Singh and accused Deepinder Singh became friend three months prior to the occurrence. Accused Deepinder Singh used to receive an amount of Rs.1 lac or 1.50 lacs in the evening from the complainant and used to return the same on the next day along with interest of Rs.1,000/- per lac for the use of said amount and accused was running such business in such manner with Paramdeep Singh, complainant. Accused then demanded more money from the complainant on 30.3.2007 by disclosing some scheme to be held on 31.3.2007. Paramdeep Singh paid amount of Rs.2,10,000/- and, thus, the amount of Rs.5,10,000/- was outstanding against accused Deepinder Singh. Then accused telephonically proposed complainant to have breakfast together on 31.3.2007 as he would bring Purri Chhole from temple Mata Longan Wali. Then accused brought Purri Chhole in an envelop at about 11 a.m. to the house of complainant. Paramdeep Singh, his wife Surjit Kaur and his son Swapandeep Singh and Deepinder Singh accused had eaten the said Purri Chholle together but accused refused to eat Chholle on the pretext of pain in stomach and took only Purri along with pickle. Paramdeep Singh, his wife and son on eating Purri Chholle started feeling intoxicated. The accused Criminal Revision No.1105 of 2008 3 immediately went from house of complainant. They became unconscious and were taken to hospital by Harmeet Singh. The accused in order to usurp the said amount of complainant, got served Purri Chholle containing some poisonous substance. On receipt of information Jagbinder Singh SI went to AP Hospital, but Paramdeep Singh was declared unfit to make statement. On the next day, after obtaining the opinion of the doctor that the patient was fit to make statement, he recorded statement of Paramdeep Singh on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. SI took into possession vomiting material of Paramdeep Singh and of Gurjit Kaur after making into parcel and sealing the same. Sample of blood of Paramdeep Singh was also taken into possession by SI. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan. Statements of witnesses were recorded by SI. Accused was arrested on 3.4.2007. After completion of the investigation, accused was challaned.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving the ingredients of Sections 328 and 307 IPC. As per the opinion of Dr.A.P.Singh (PW- 6), in case the petitioner had not been treated in time, he could have died. Criminal Revision No.1105 of 2008 4 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the allegation against respondent No.1 was that he had given some poisonous substance to the petitioner in his food i.e. Purri Chholle. However, no poison was detected by the Chemical Analyst in the samples sent for chemical examination. It has been held by the Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the allegation levelled by the petitioner against respondent No.1 was that the petitioner had been given some poisonous substance in Purri Chholle by respondent No.1. After eating the same, the petitioner vomited and had become unconscious and was taken to the hospital for treatment. The samples of vomit, blood and urine were sent for chemical analysis. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab Chandigarh (Ex.P-18), all the parcels were analysed and no common poison could be detected in the contents of the samples. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondent No.1. Criminal Revision No.1105 of 2008 5 The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The impugned judgment of the trial Court, thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 29, 2009 anita