Crl. Revision No.2208 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2208 of 2008 Date of decision : 08.03.2010 Rajesh .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravish Kaushik, AAG, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Rajesh @ Rajesh Sharma son of Maan Singh was tried in case FIR No.259 dated 20.11.1998 registered at Police Station City, Narwana under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC. The trial Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC. However, it found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 420 IPC. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for one month. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner has filed an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed and conviction and sentence were maintained. FIR in the present case was lodged on the basis of communication dated 19.11.1998 issued by SDM, Narwana to DSP, Crl. Revision No.2208 of 2008 -2- Narwana for registration of a case. It was stated in the communication that one Sube Singh son of Deep Chand PW-3 appeared before the SDM for transfer of Registration Certificate of motor cycle bearing Regn. No.HR-32/2128. It was found that Registration Certificate produced by Sube Singh was a forged and fabricated document. On the basis of communication, the FIR was lodged. Sube Singh made a statement before the police and also in the Court that the motor cycle in question was purchased by his son Rajesh from the present petitioner in the year 1996 and the accused had received Rs.12,000/- as sale consideration of the motor cycle. It was further stated that in the year 1998, accused had handed over Registration Certificate of motor cycle when the same was presented for transfer. It was found that it contained wrong chassis and engine number. In fact, the said Registration Certificate was issued qua one tractor. The trial Court came to the conclusion that no cross- examination of Ashok Kumar PW-2 was conducted as he never appeared after his examination-in-chief was recorded. The trial Court also relied upon the statement of witnesses and hold that Registration Certificate was handed over by Ashok Kumar, Clerk in the office of SDM Narwana. The Court also noticed that the motor cycle sold was not a new motor cycle because Rajesh accused facing trial had also purchased this motor cycle from previous owner. The trial Court came to the conclusion that petitioner had not prepared and forged the Registration Certificate. The trial Court relied upon the statement of Sube Singh that his son was induced to pay Rs.12,000/- to the petitioner and wrongly loss was caused to him Crl. Revision No.2208 of 2008 -3- and convicted the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once trial Court noticed that petitioner was not the original owner of the motor cycle but had purchased the same from someone else, it cannot be said that petitioner knew that the motor cycle was stolen, therefore, petitioner had effected the sale of motor cycle in good faith. It is further submitted that Rajesh son of Sube Singh who had purchased motor cycle from petitioner had not appeared in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner had cheated Rajesh son of Sube Singh. Counsel states that both the Courts below have relied upon hearsay evidence of Sube Singh. However, the trial Court relied upon the testimony of PW-6 Joginder son of Shri Niwas who stated that he had accompanied Rajesh son of Sube Singh to the shoe shop of Surender son of Dharampal where motor cycle was purchased from the accused Rajesh Sharma son of Maan Singh. This witness stated that the transaction of the motor cycle was made in his presence. The Lower Appellate Court had also placed reliance upon the testimony of PW-3 Sube Singh and PW-6 Joginder. From the facts, it emerges that petitioner had sold motor cycle to Rajesh son of Sube Singh for a sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- and that is why the trial Court had recorded acquittal of the petitioner under Section 467/468 and 471 IPC, State of Haryana has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the accused for these offences. The question which remains for determination of the Court is as to whether the petitioner had cheated Rajesh Son of Sube Singh and had made him payment of Rs.12,000/- by practising Crl. Revision No.2208 of 2008 -4- deception? There is no such evidence to this effect on the record of the case. Rather it has come in evidence that petitioner had also purchased the motor cycle and had sold the same. Rajesh son of Sube Singh had not stepped into witness box. It is difficult to gather any intention on the part of the petitioner to cheat Rajesh whose father Sube Singh has appeared as PW-3. In these circumstances, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner. Hence, present revision petition is accepted. The judgments of conviction and order of sentence under Section 420 IPC rendered by both the Courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 08-03-2010 JUDGE manju