IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Appeal No.483-SB of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: July 19, 2011 Pardeep Kumar …..Appellant versus Prem Sagar .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant None for the respondent .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 7.7.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot acquitting the accused of charge under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order on the ground that appellant took all measures to adduce evidence. However, the trial court came to an erroneous conclusion that despite several opportunities, complainant had failed to adduce evidence and thus, acquitted the accused. The appellant had filed a complaint on the allegation that accused had filed a false complaint against him before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot. He had levelled false allegations in the said complaint. The accused had also made false representation dated 18.2.2003 to SSP, Faridkot and dated 23.5.2003 to DSP, Crl.Appeal No.483-SB of 2009 - 2 - Dharamkot. The accused alleged that appellant and his father-in-law had forcibly entered the petrol pump belonging to the accused and also that they dealt in opium trade. The accused also alleged that appellant alongwith his father-in-law had looted an amount of Rs.4,500/- by breaking the petrol pump. The complaint was thus preferred by appellant Pardeep Kumar on the allegation that accused had tarnished his image and defamed him. After recording prosecution evidence, the accused was summoned to face trial on 26.2.2007 for commission of offence under section 500 IPC. The accused thereafter surrendered and was enlarged on bail. After framing of charge, however, appellant failed to adduce any evidence. In the absence of any incriminating evidence, the trial court dispensed with recording of statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused was acquitted. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned order. I am thus, of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the case. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. July 19, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 2