Criminal Revision No.1695 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1695 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.02.2009 Gurshawinder Singh @ Gurminder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the Courts below whereby respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Brief facts of the case are that accused were posted in police post Bajakhana, Police Station Jaitu. As per complaint they in connivance with other faction of the village Panchayat implicated the complainant in a false case on the pretext that he was supporting Gurvir Singh Sarpanch in the panchayat elections. He had surrendered in the Court of chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, on 25.6.1998 and was released on interim bail. Criminal Revision No.1695 of 2008 (O&M) 2 The police added an offence under the Arms Act and obtained his police custody for two days. On 28.6.1998 at about 6 p.m. both the accused under the influence of liquor tortured him (complainant) in police post Baja Khana and forced him to confess the guilt. The occurrence was witnessed by Shamsher Singh, Jagjit Singh and Kaur Singh. The accused wanted that he should admit that the fire arm belonged to Gurdev Singh son of Sucha Singh, but in vain. On 29.6.1998 he was produced before the Court and on an application filed by him he was medically examined. Copy of MLR was forcibly taken from him by the police. After the opening of the Courts after summer vacation he filed the complaint.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no sufficient material on record to establish that respondent No.2 was on leave on the alleged day of occurrence. In fact, complainant had been tortured in custody by respondent No.2 and his co-accused ASI Avtar Singh. Vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2006, ASI Avtar Singh was convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 323 and 330 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. Aggrieved by the same, ASI Avtar Singh as well as complainant filed appeals and the Criminal Revision No.1695 of 2008 (O&M) 3 same were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 7.12.2007. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 28.6.1998. Respondent No.2 was on leave from 26.6.1998 to 30.6.1998. An application submitted by respondent No.2 to Deputy Superintendent of Police, who sanctioned six days leave to respondent No.2 on 23.6.1998, was proved on record as Ex.DJ. Entry in the Daily Diary Register Ex.DG was also proved on record as per which respondent No.2 had proceeded on leave on 27.6.1998 at 7.30 a.m. Respondent No.2 joined his duty on 30.6.1998 and an entry in this regard was made in the Daily Diary Register Ex.DH. In these circumstance, both the Courts below rightly held that the presence of respondent No.2 at the spot was doubtful. Hence, the impugned judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from the vice of illegality and call for no interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE February 03, 2009 anita Criminal Revision No.1695 of 2008 (O&M) 4 It is a settled proposition of law that this Court can interfere in revision against judgment of acquittal only if a case was made out for re-trial because in view of Section 401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court.