Crl. Revn. No. 2068 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No. 2068 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 26.04.2010 Bharat Singh @ Bhartha ..........Petitioner Versus Kitab Singh & Anr. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. There is a delay of 569 days in filing the present revision petition. The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 1.8.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, whereby, respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 420 IPC. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution story, as mentioned in the petition are that an application was moved by petitioner-complainant to the Police Station on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered against respondent No.1. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, challan was presented. Accused- respondent No.1 was chargesheeted under Section 420 IPC. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Bhartha (PW-1), Nasib Singh (PW-2), SI Jaimal Singh (PW-3) and Surjeet Singh (PW-4). Crl. Revn. No. 2068 of 2009 (O&M) (2) Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 1.8.2007 discharged accused-respondent No.1. Aggrieved against order dated 1.8.2007, the petitioner filed revision petition before Sessions Judge, Kaithal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 3.1.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has proved on record by oral as well as documentary evidence that 20 buffaloes were purchased by accused-respondent No.1 from the petitioner and he did not make payment of the sale price inspite of demand raised by the petitioner and an offence under Section 420 IPC is clearly made out against respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the prosecution was also proved by the statement of Nasib Singh (PW-2) but the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was not believed by the trial Court and respondent No.1 has wrongly been discharged. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order of the trial Court. The trial Court has given a clear cut finding by stating that there is nothing in the testimony of Bhartha (PW-1) that the accused induced him to deliver buffaloes or was having a dishonest or fraudulent intention to take possession of alleged buffaloes. The details of purchase of buffaloes by the complainant-petitioner from different persons have not been proved and it has been admitted by the complainant in his cross- examination that he stated different facts as mentioned in the application Ex. PA. Moreover, no witness was examined by the prosecution to prove on record its case. The testimony of Nasib Singh (PW-2) also does not inspire confidence to prove the case of the prosecution as he has clearly stated that he did not know as to how many buffaloes were taken by the Crl. Revn. No. 2068 of 2009 (O&M) (3) accused. Even in cross-examination, Nasib Singh (PW-2) stated that no transaction of sale of 20 buffaloes was entered into between accused and complainant in his presence. Similarly, the testimony of Surjit Singh (PW- 4) is hear say, as he stated in cross-examination that he came to know that accused-respondent No.1 took 20 buffaloes from Bharat Singh- petitioner. Since the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the basis of statement of witnesses, therefore, the trial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that no case is made out against accused-respondent No.1. Moreover there is a delay of 569 days in filing the revision petition and no ground to explain the same has been mentioned in the application. Revision is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits. April 26, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No