IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 1903 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.3.2010 Shrawan Kuamr ......Petitioner Vs. Ganesh Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.J.P.Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ajit Atri, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.S.S.Mor, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.2. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed against judgment of acquittal dated 4.2.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, vide which Ganesh Kumar - respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 420 and 201 IPC. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution story are that complainant Shrawan Kumar lodged a written complaint by stating that he along with accused Babu Ram, Tek Chand, Mange Ram and Jagdish went to Tehsil Karnal for executing a sale deed of land situated in village Makhu Majra for a sale consideration of Rs.44,000/-. Ganesh Kumar brought stamp papers on which sale deed was scribed and he was required to sign the same. Before signing the document, Ganesh Kumar demanded the document pertaining to the previous agreement to sell which was required to be cancelled. Jai Crl.Revision No. 1903 of 2008 [2] Parkash, Notary Public, handed over the documents to Mange Ram who assured the parties for getting the documents in safe custody. The complainant affixed his signature for cancellation of the document with the Notary Public and on asking of outstanding amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from accused Ganesh Kumar and an affidavit from Notary Public was taken on the pretext of showing to the Patwari. As Ganesh Kumar did not return the document for a long time, Mange Ram went to check him and handed over all the documents to Ganesh Kumar and he informed the complainant that Ganesh Kumar had taken the documents for getting them photo-copied. When Ganesh Kumar did not return to the Tehsil for execution of the sale deed, then the complaint was lodged. The matter was investigated, accused was arrested and faced trial. Challan was presented in the Court against the accused on 14.2.2002 and he was charge-sheeted under Sections 420/202 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution to prove its case examined Om Parkash as PW-1, Mange Ram as PW-2, Tek Chand as PW-3, Pala Singh as PW-4, Mohar Singh as PW-5, ASI Bhim Singh as PW-6, Jagjit Kumar Malhotra, Notary Public as PW-7, Constable Lakhmi Chand as PW-8, Shrawan Kumar complainant as PW-9, and Inspector Balbir Singh as PW-10. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied all the allegations and claimed false implication. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and on the basis of evidence on record, acquitted the accused of the charge framed against Crl.Revision No. 1903 of 2008 [3] him on the ground that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and out of attesting witnesses of the document, one witness namely Joginder was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused and Pala Singh PW-4 was declared hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution. The complaint was not filed by Pushpa as the stamp papers were purchased for execution of the sale deed in favour of Pushpa wife of Shrawan Kumar. Neither she stepped into the witness box to depose against the accused nor did she lodge any complaint. Moreover, complainant Shrawan Kumar also admitted in his statement that his wife Pushpa was not among those persons who were present in Tehsil. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charge by holding that the present case is of civil nature whereas the case of the petitioner was that respondent No.1 had destroyed the documents like previous agreement to sell with his father, the present agreement with respondent No.1 typed on stamp papers worth Rs.5500/-, cancellation deed of previous deed etc. It cannot be a case of civil nature and is clear-cut case under Section 420/201 IPC. Mr.J.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no delay in lodging of the FIR as the application was given by the petitioner to Superintendent of Police, Karnal, on the same day but the case was registered on 26.5.2001 and the delay was not on the part of the present petitioner but was on the part of the police. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the important fact that the papers were taken from the petitioner by respondent No.1 for getting photo-copied and those documents were destroyed by Crl.Revision No. 1903 of 2008 [4] respondent No.1. The question of presence of Pushpa was not relevant. Learned counsel for accused respondent No.1 submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the basis of statements of witnesses as the statement of the complainant was not in consistent with the contents of the complaint filed by him and Pushpa has not lodged any complaint nor she stepped into the witness box to depose against the accused. None of the prosecution witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on record. The case of the complainant has not been proved on the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses as Joginder PW was given up by the prosecution as he was won over by the accused and Pala Singh PW-4 was declared hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution. The complainant is husband of Pushpa in whose name the stamps papers were purchased but neither she has lodged any complaint against the accused nor she stepped into the witness box to depose against him. As per statement of complainant Shrawan Kumar, the sale deed was to be executed between him and the accused whereas the stamp papers were purchased in the name of Pushpa. It was not the case of the complainant that the sale deed was to be executed in favour of his wife Smt. Pushpa and no reference to this effect was made in the original complaint. Moreover, the complainant in his statement Ex.PW-9/A before the police improved his version and in the statement made before the Court stated that the sale deed was to be Crl.Revision No. 1903 of 2008 [5] executed in favour of his wife but in cross-examination he admitted that his wife Pushpa was not among those persons who were present in Tehsil. There is nothing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses to show that the accused had cheated the complainant in any manner and no evidence is there to show that the documents were destroyed by the accused. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed and impugned order passed by the trial Court is upheld. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 10, 2010. raghav