Criminal Revision No. 2346 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. 45820 of 2009 and Criminal Revision No. 2346 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.10.2009 Rachhpal Singh ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, on 18.5.2009, whereby he upheld the order of conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, on 11.4.2008. The brief facts of the case as are available on record are that the petitioner and his wife Joginder Kaur induced the complainant and obtained Rs. 75,000/- from him in the presence of Kulwinder Singh son of Kapur Singh and Jaspal Singh son of Lekh Ram residents of Village Harlalpura, for sending his son Harpreet Singh to Greece. When they did not send his son abroad, the complainant demanded his amount back but they stated that they would return the amount on the arrival of Dr. Sukhdev Singh son of Balihar Singh, resident of Bhadi Khalsa, Tehsil Phillore from abroad. They even executed an agreement dated 21.4.2001 according to which the amount was to be returned on 21.10.2001. After the due date, the complainant requested the accused many times but all in vain which resulted in the lodging of the FIR. On completion of investigation, the challan was filed against the petitioner and his wife. They were charge-sheeted under Sections 420 and 406 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court convicted the petitioner and his wife. In appeal, his wife was acquitted of all the charges and he was also acquitted under Section 406 IPC but was convicted under Section 420 IPC. However, his sentence of imprisonment was reduced from three years to two years. It is against this judgment that the petitioner is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below have gone wrong in convicting the petitioner. He submitted that neither the Criminal Revision No. 2346 of 2009 (2) signatures of the petitioner on the alleged agreement nor any documentary proof to show that the amount was ever given by the complainant to the petitioner were proved and in the absence thereof, the courts below have wrongly convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is more than 50 years of age and keeping in view the fact that he has to look after his children and wife, his sentence of imprisonment may be reduced. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book. The prosecution has proved agreement, Ex.PW1/A which bears signatures of the petitioner Rachhpal Singh in English, whereas Sucha Singh and Tarlok Singh in Punjabi. It was witnessed by Mehenga Singh and Kulwinder Singh and duly attested by Bhushal Lal Gupta, a Notary Public. The allegations have also been proved by the complainant and other witnesses. The petitioner had not brought any evidence on record to show that the complainant or the police had any enmity with him. In the presence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been wrongly convicted by the courts below. On 9.9.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought time to have instructions from the petitioner as to whether he is still ready and willing to pay the amount which was promised by the petitioner to be paid to the complainant and compound the offence, but the reply was in the negative. The petitioner had even conceded before the court below that he will make the payment, received by him, to the complainant but he did not do so. The prayer of the petitioner that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced can also not be considered keeping in view his conduct. Moreover, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, has already reduced it from three years to two years. There being no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed. Since the revision has been dismissed, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 15.10.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge