CRM No.M-29290 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-4.10.2010 Ved Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement and relevant for deciding the core controversy raised in the instant petition, is that in the wake of complaint of Satish Kumar complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, vide FIR No.484 dated 8.10.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 364 and 120-B read with section 511 IPC by the police of Police Station Assand, Distt.Karnal. 2. Concisely according to the prosecution that accused Kali Ram hired accused Ved Pal and Dharam Pal alias Pala for contract killing of Sandeep (PW5) and promised to pay them Rs.1½ lacs for killing him. Consequently, he paid the amount. On 5.10.2009, the accused abducted and attempted to murder Sandeep, but he luckily freed himself and hidden in the fields. The prosecution claimed that accused Kali Ram paid the amount and Ved Pal and Dharampal abducted Sandeep (PW5) with the intention to kill him, at the instance of Kali Ram for a sum of Rs.1½ lacs. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. During the course of investigation, the petitioner-accused was arrested and an amount of Rs.20,000/- as his share in the contract killing money CRM No.M-29290 of 2010 (O&M) 2 was recovered from him on 11.10.2009, which was taken into possession, vide recovery memo. 4. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the trial Judge acquitted the accused, vide judgment dated 1.5.2010 (Annexure P2). 5. After acquittal, petitioner Ved Pal moved an application for returning an amount of Rs.20,000/-, which was recovered as booty of contract killing money. The application was dismissed by the trial Judge, vide impugned order dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure P3). 6. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and filed the present petition for setting aside the impugned order (Annexure P3), invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the main case, so, the trial Court ought to have refunded the amount to him, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well. 9. As is evident from the record that accused Kali Ram hired accused Ved Pal and Dharam Pal alias Pala for contract killing of Sandeep (PW5) and promised them to pay a sum of Rs.1½ lacs for killing him. Consequently, accused Kali Ram paid the amount. On 5.10.2009, the accused abducted and attempted to murder Sandeep, but he luckily freed himself and hidden in the fields. Meaning thereby, the amount was paid to the petitioner for illegal and immoral purposes for committing the murder of Sandeep. The amount, in any manner, does not belong to the petitioner. Therefore, he has no legal right to claim its refund. To my mind, the trial Court has rightly ordered the forfeiture of the amount to the State in this relevant connection. CRM No.M-29290 of 2010 (O&M) 3 10. The trial Court has recorded the well reasoned and well articulated findings, which cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned order by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 4.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge