IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2297 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 27, 2011 Mohan Singh .. Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J. Two accused namely Mohan Singh and Makhan Ram were tried for the offence under Sections 420/406/34 IPC for cheating the people in the name of lottery. Consequently, vide judgment dated 13.10.2010 passed by the trial court, accused- petitioner Mohan Singh (herein referred as, 'the accused') was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of `500/- under Section 420 IPC, whereas, no proceedings could be taken against Makhan Ram as he was declared as proclaimed offender. The appellate court vide its judgment dated 8.9.2011 had also dismissed his appeal. In nutshell, the allegations are that a case was registered at the instance of Hardeep Singh (PW4), who disclosed that Makhan Ram and the accused had started a lottery scheme in the name and style of M/s Nurmahal Enterprises, in which the complainant as well as many other persons had invested the money. Mohan Singh petitioner and Makhan Ram (since proclaimed offender) had assured that every person would get prize and if any member did not get any prize, then he would receive `3500/- at the end of the scheme. Every person was to deposit a sum of `100/- every month. They were also issued deposit cards. The accused had got signatures of the investors on different papers and on receiving a sum of `100/- from the complainant and others, the accused were to issue said cards. The accused got signatures of the investors when they deposited `100/- with them on those cards. Some times Mohan Singh used to receive the installment and Crl. Revision No. 2297 of 2011 -2- *** some times Makhan Ram. However, ultimately neither the complainant nor the other members from whom the accused had received money were given any prize under the lottery draw, nor they were returned the money. When the complainant visited the accused persons to return his money as well as the money of the 47 members, they refused to do so and misappropriated the same, as such, a case under Section 420/406/34 IPC was registered against them. The case was investigated and completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused were charged for the offence under Section 420 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Arvinder Singh (PW1), who had stated that he was also the member of lucky draw and was paying `100/- per month as installment and his card number was 67. Makhan Ram and Mohan Singh used to collect `100/- from him as well as the other members. He has also proved his card Ex.P1 on the file. Sohan Singh (PW2) has also proved his card Ex.P2 issued to him. However, during cross examination, it was specifically stated by him that the accused did not return the money. In order to support his statement, the prosecution has also examined Hardeep Singh (PW4), Dilbagh Singh (PW5), Nasib Kaur (PW6), Amarjit (PW7), Moti Ram (PW8), Sukhdev Singh (PW9), Paramjit Singh (PW10), SI AmrikSingh (PW11), Chain Ram (PW12), Gurmit Kaur (PW13), Jaspal Singh (PW14), Kuldeep Singh (PW15) (sic), , Harjinder Singh (PW16) (sic), Baldev Singh (PW17) (sic), Paramjit Singh (PW18)(sic), Gurbash Kaur (PW19)(sic), Ramandeep Singh (PW20) (sic), Daljit Singh (PW21) (sic), Raji (PW22) (sic), Jiwan Jot (PW23) (sic), Nachattar Kaur (PW24) (sic), all of them were unanimous against the accused that he and Makhan Ram had been receiving installments of `100/- per month but they neither opened any lucky draw nor they returned the money as promised by them. Manjit Kaur (PW24), Amandeep Kaur (PW25), Sarabjit Singh (PW26) and Jaspal Singh (PW27) besides reiterating the prosecution version have further proved the cards issued by the accused to them as Ex.PW24/A to Ex.PW27/A respectively. Crl. Revision No. 2297 of 2011 -3- *** No specific defence was taken by the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Heard. From the aforesaid consistent testimonies, both the courts below have returned findings of fact that the petitioner as well as Makhan Ram (since proclaimed offender) had started the scheme of lottery draw under the name and style of M/s Nurmahal Enterprises in the year 1999. Every participant was to deposit a sum of `100/- per month and the accused had created attraction stating that they would open a lucky draw on 15th of every month and they would give the lucky prize for 30 months. If any member does not get the prize till the end of the scheme, then they would be returned `3500/- and the person facing favour the lucky draws would not have to pay the amount of the remaining installments. It has also come in evidence that the accused did not fulfill the promise. Neither any lucky draw was opened by them nor they returned the money entrusted to them by the witnesses at the end of the scheme. In view of the voluminous evidence led by the prosecution and the natural way in which their statements have come on record, it is difficult to believe that the accused were not entrusted the money and they returned the same. Both the courts below appear to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No plausible defence has been led by the accused in order to falsify the prosecution version. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed in limine. September 27, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge