CRR No.2067 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2067 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.01.2011 Karam Singh ....Petitioners Versus Jagpal Bali and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Parminder Singh-II, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the judgment dated 28.3.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar, thereby acquitting the accused/respondent in Case No.57/1/01 pursuant to FIR No.221 dated 21.9.2000 registered under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar. As per prosecution story Karam Singh has lodged an FIR with allegation that his only son is residing in America and his nephew Satpal son of Ram Singh, r/o Pandori Labha Singh wanted to go abroad. The relative of one travel agent Jagpal Bali who is residing in America talked with his son Paramjit Singh and she told him to have a talk with Jagpal Bali. So the petitioner/complainant along with his nephew Satpal and one Ranjit Singh son of Sohan Singh went to the kothi of Jagpal CRR No.2067 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Bali at Upkar Nagar, Jalandhar and they met Jagpal Bali and talked with him that he wants to send his nephew Satpal to America and Jagpal Bali demanded a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- for sending his nephew abroad and also told them that he will take Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith passport and will get the remaining amount of Rs.6,50,000/- after the visa of his nephew will be ready. After making arrangements on 25.12.1998 he alongwith Satpal, Darshan Ram son of Garibu, Parkash Ram son of Amar Chand went to the house of Jagpal Bali and gave Rs.1,30,000/- and passport of his nephew in their presence and after three months the abovesaid travel agent again demanded money and on 13.3.99 he along with his nephew and Darshan Ram went to him and gave a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to Jagpal Bali and again on 7.4.99 he gave a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the house of Jagpal Bali in the presence of Satpal and Parkash Ram and on 20.4.99 the said agent took his nephew to Delhi and he also accompanied them and Jagpal Bali told them that the visa is ready and demanded the remaining amount and he showed him a visa in Royal Hotel in Delhi and took the remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from him in the presence of Shingara Ram son of Babu Ram, r/o New Delhi, but he neither sent his nephew to America nor returned his passport as well as an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and thus, he (petitioner- accused) has cheated him. After thorough investigation, challan was submitted against the accused. From the accused side, one witness has been examined and cross-examined, however, Karam Singh, complainant, had appeared before the Court only for the examination-in-chief and despite of several opportunities having been given, he never turned up for his cross- CRR No.2067 of 2009 (O&M) -3- examination. Since complainant/informant of the FIR did not appear before the Court for cross-examination, hence learned Trial Court has closed the evidence and after observing that complainant has not supported the prosecution story, has acquitted the accused. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In a case where complainant himself does not support the prosecution story and does not appear before the Court despite of several opportunities for cross-examination, then no conviction shall be followed only on the basis of examination-in-chief. In the present case from the perusal of the record, I am satisfied that learned trial Court has not shut out or overlooked any evidence, which could prove offence against the accused. I do not find any manifest error of law or jurisdictional error or procedural error on the part of the trial Court resulting in wrong judgment. Petition is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge January 27, 2011 R.S.