Criminal Revision No. 2374 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No. 2374 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision:16.05.2008 Pujari Satpal Sharma .....Petitioner Vs. Chand Parkash Maghan and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. A.S.Mann, Advocate for Mr. G.S.Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAJESH BINDAL J. The challenge in the present petition is to the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur dated 13.8.2004 whereby the respondents in the petition were acquitted in a complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 323, 324, 353, 500, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. The petition was filed in September, 2004. Initially, the same was adjourned on the request of counsel for the petitioner or on account of his absence. On 26.9.2006, while adjourning the case, this Court observed that no further adjournment shall be granted. On 7.11.2006, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment in the present case was appealable, accordingly, he sought permission to move an application for treating the petition as an appeal and the case was adjourned on the request of counsel for the petitioner. On 6.9.2007, it was stated that Leave to Appeal was required to be filed against the impugned judgment, accordingly, adjournment was sought to take appropriate action. On 16.11.2007, though office reported that no action in terms of the order passed by this Court on 6.9.2007 was taken but the fact was disputed by the counsel for the petitioner stating that he had already moved an application for treating the present petition as leave to appeal. The Registry was directed to trace out the application and place the same on record. The comments of the Registry was also sought as to why note contrary to the Criminal Revision No. 2374 of 2004 -2- facts was given. However, on inquiry, Registry found that as on the date when the statement was made by the counsel for the petitioner, no application as such had been filed and the same was in fact filed only on 20.2.2008. It is in this factual matrix that the matter is before this Court nearly after four years of acquittal of the respondents in a complaint filed by the petitioner. Though the application filed by the petitioner for leave to appeal itself is required to be dismissed on account of delay and laches for the reason that in spite of the fact having been noticed way back on 7.11.2006 that against the impugned judgment appeal was maintainable and further the petitioner sought adjournment to move an application for leave to appeal on 6.9.2007, it was only on 20.2.2008 that the application for leave to appeal was filed that too after the statement made by counsel for the petitioner on 16.11.2007 that he had already filed an application which was found to be incorrect. Even if the merits of the case are considered, a perusal of the well-considered judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur shows that after considering the material on record, specific issues arising out of the claim set up by the parties were framed and it was found that there was no evidence on record regarding any injury suffered by the petitioner in the absence of which the allegation that the petitioner had been caused injuries by respondents No.1 to 5 could not be proved. There was no reason forthcoming as to why a complaint was made directly in the Court when even the police officials had also been impleaded as accused. There was nothing on record to show that any complaint of the incident and involvement of the police officials was made to the senior police officers about their conduct and the allegation that the house of the petitioner was got illegally searched by respondents No.1 to 7 in connivance with each other. It could not factually be proved by the petitioner that there was search at all. The evidence led by the petitioner was not found to be trustworthy. Even with the evidence led to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was illegally detained in the police station it could not be proved beyond shadow of doubt. Learned counsel for the petitioner had not been able to point out any evidence on record which could enable this Court to lead to a Criminal Revision No. 2374 of 2004 -3- conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur acquitting the respondents are in any manner perverse and the view taken by it was not possible on the basis of material on record. Accordingly, even on merits, I do not find any justification to grant leave to appeal. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the revision is also dismissed. May 16, 2008 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu JUDGE