IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2131 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 14, 2011 Ajaib Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 20.8.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 22.2.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of `4000/- under Section 420 IPC. However, accused Harjinder Kaur was acquitted by the trial court while giving her benefit of doubt, whereas, accused Jaswinder Singh @ Jasmit Singh was declared as proclaimed offender. In brief, the allegations are that the accused Ajaib Singh, Harjinder Kaur (since acquitted), and Sukhdwinder Singh @ Jasmit Singh, induced the complainant Dharam Chand to part with a sum of `7,80,000/- on the assurance that they would send his son namely Avtar Singh to England. The accused had further stated that firstly his son would be sent to Cyprus and from there Jaswinder Singh alias Jasmit Singh (since proclaimed offender) would send him to England. It has been further averred that the complainant gave `1,00,000/- on 15.9.2003, another sum of `1,00,000/- on 21.10.2003, `4,00,000/- on 15.12.2003 and `1,80,000/- on 20.3.2004. The accused arranged false visa for Avtar Singh son of the complainant from Pakistan to England and he was apprehended at the airport of England and ultimately on 2.5.2004 he was deported to India. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered and investigated. On completion of the investigation, charge report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court. Criminal Revision No. 2128 of 2011 (O&M) -2- The accused were charged under Sections 420 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined C. Satnam Singh (PW1), Dharam Chand (PW2), Avtar Singh (PW3), Joginder Pal (PW4), Paramjit Singh (PW5), Sohan Singh (PW6), ASI Surinder Singh (PW7) and Santokh Singh (PW8). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. The trial resulted into conviction of accused Ajaib Singh. However, accused Harjinder Kaur was acquitted while giving her benefit of doubt, whereas, accused Jaswinder Singh alias Jasmit Singh was declared proclaimed offender. It has been argued with vehemence by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses has not supported the prosecution version. Sohan Singh (PW6), during his cross examination, has stated that he does not identify the person to whom the payment was made. It has been further urged that no receipt regarding payment of money has been placed on the record and even if no payment has been made, it is a civil liability. Having pondered over the arguments, it may be observed that the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to prove on record that the accused had received a sum of `7,80,000/- on the pretext of sending Avtar Singh son of the complainant to England. There is no denying a fact that the accused Ajaib Singh is working as travel agent The complainant Dharam Chand while appearing in the witness box as PW2 has reiterated the entire prosecution version. It has also come on record that a sum of `1,80,000/- has been paid to the accused in the presence of Joginder Pal (PW4) and a sum of `5,00,000/- have been paid to the accused in the presence of Santokh Singh (PW8) on different occasions. The complainant has also produced on record various documents in the shape of receipts and passbooks in order to prove the payments made to the accused. As such, the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to prove record that various payments were made by the complainant to the accused. As regards the contention that it is a civil liability, it may be observed that the civil as well as criminal liability could go together. The Criminal Revision No. 2128 of 2011 (O&M) -3- accused cheated the complainant and his son and extracted money with a promise to send Avtar Singh to England. However, a false visa was arranged for him and he was sent to England from Islamabad, where he was arrested and ultimately deported to India. Certainly there is mens-rea on the part of the accused to arrange false visa and for that criminal liability is there for the accused. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an old person and suffering from heart problem, as such a lenient view may kindly be taken on the quantum of sentence. Having heard the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, I of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some reduction in the sentence is made. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to 1- ½ years without any alteration in the sentence of fine. September 14, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge