IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision.No. 482 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.2.2010 Vinod Kumar … Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Sabina J. Vinod-petitioner was tried for an offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) in FIR No.115 dated 23.10.1997. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide judgment and order dated 19.4.2006 which is as under:- Sr.No. U/S RI Fine In default of payment of fine 1. 420 IPC 2 years Rs.5000/ - 3 months 2. 465 IPC 1 year Rs.2000/ - 1 month 3. 468 IPC 1 year Rs.2000/ - 1 month 4 471 IPC 1 year Rs.1000/ - 15 days Aggrieved by the judgment/order of conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 11.2.2010. Hence, the present petition. Brief facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional Judge in para 3 of its judgment reads as under:- “In nutshell, the facts of the prosecution case are that as per the averments of the complaint dated 17.6.1997 moved before the SSP, Ferozepur complainant stated that the accused was his friend and took a sum of Rs.70,000/- on the pretext of some work for Crl. Revision.No. 482 of 2010 (O&M) him. The accused took him in confidence to get him allotted a MIG flat at Mohali from Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA). The accused assured him that Pt.Bal Mukand Sharma is a Minister of PUDA and flat in VIP Quota are yet to be allotted. The accused assured him to get him allotted on such Flat from discretionary quota. In this manner, the accused received a sum of Rs.40000/- in order to get it deposited with PUDA Authority and Rs.30,000/- for payment to the Minister and other expenses. The accused also received Rs.62,000/- from his another friend on the pretext of getting allotted a flat. On believing the accused, he also paid Rs.70,000/- in cash to the accused. The accused got prepared a draft of sum of Rs.40,000/- from Bank of Baroda, Ferozepur City and handed over the Photostat copy to him. Application form was also got filled from him. The accused himself filled the particulars of draft in the application. He also took all the papers to Chandigarh but the complainant is not aware whether the accused went to Chandigarh or not. After a few days, the accused returned a receipt of PUDA regarding receipt of form allegedly signed by one Radhe Sham, an employee of PUDA. The complainant came to know that accused himself signed the receipt in the name of Radhe Sham and did not deposit the form at Chandigarh. The accused got the draft cancelled after one month and withdrawn Rs.40,000/-. After one year when the enquiry was made from the accused, he admitted that he has committed a mistake and he has used the amount and also promised to return the amount. But the accused has been delaying to return the amount and has started threatening that the complainant cannot do anything and that he has a great influence. The accused has cheated the complainant for a sum of Rs.70,000/- and he has also threatened to kill the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, application was forwarded to Anti Fraud Squad for verification of allegations and to report. After submission of report by Anti Fraud Squad, Ferozepur, FIR No.115 was registered against the accused on 23.10.2007 in Police Station city Ferozepur. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested the accused. After completion of necessary investigation formalities, challan was presented in the court.” 2 Crl. Revision.No. 482 of 2010 (O&M) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had received a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the complainant on a false promise that the petitioner would get a flat allotted in the name of the complainant from the office of Punjab Urban Development Authority (in short ‘PUDA’). However, the petitioner misappropriated the said amount and issued a forged and fabricated receipts to the complainant. The petitioner never submitted any application to the office of PUDA. Complainant himself appeared in the witness box as PW- 1 in order to substantiate his case. The case of the complainant was that he had paid Rs.70,000/- in cash to the petitioner. The petitioner had got prepared draft No.635615 dated 11.4.1996 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- which was to be paid to the PUDA and remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- was taken by the petitioner to be paid to some other person. However, the draft was got cancelled by the petitioner and the amount was withdrawn by the petitioner. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, have thus rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence committed by the petitioner, no ground is made out even for reduction of sentence. No interference by this Court is called for. Dismissed [ Sabina ] Judge 18.02.2010 sd 3