IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2433 of 2009 Date of decision : October 28, 2009 Nachhattar Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 46833 of 2009 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 135 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Criminal Revision No. 2433 of 2009 Nachhattar Singh has filed this revision petition challenging judgment of acquittal dated 13.12.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Faridkot, thereby acquitting Sanjiv Kumar respondent no. 2 . I have learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The prosecution case is that petitioner's son Jaswinder Singh suffered injuries on 10.11.2006 and the matter was reported to the police. Sanjiv Kumar respondent no. 2 was working as Pharmacist in Civil Hospital, Kotakpura. Respondent no. 2 was required to send x-ray report of Criminal Revision No. 2433 of 2009 -2- Jaswinder Singh to the police for the injury case. The petitioner requested respondent no. 2 from 16.11.2006 till 18.11.2006 to send the x-ray report to the Police Station but respondent no. 2 demanded Rs 2500/- as bribe for doing the needful. The matter was settled at Rs 1500/- in the presence of petitioner's friend Ranjit Singh. Nachhattar Singh lodged report with the police regarding demand of bribe by respondent no. 2. Thereupon trap was laid. Ranjit Singh was deputed as shadow witness. Bribe amount of Rs 1500/- was allegedly paid by the petitioner to respondent no. 2 after putting phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes. The bribe money was recovered from the left pocket of trouser of respondent no. 2. Said pocket on being washed in solution of sodium carbonate turned light pink. Hands of respondent no. 2 were washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned light pink. Ranjit Singh shadow witness who is friend of the complainant- petitioner himself has turned hostile completely and thereby demolished the prosecution case. Even the petitioner admitted that he had not seen x-ray report with respondent no. 2. It was also stated that he had shaken his hand with respondent no. 2 before the raid. Consequently, phenolphthalein powder on the hand of the petitioner could stick to the hand of respondent no. 2. In addition to the aforesaid the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the x-ray report in question was with respondent no. 2 and he was required to send it to the police. There is no evidence on record to show that any police official had contacted respondent no. 2 to collect x-ray report from him. Even the petitioner himself has stated that he had also not Criminal Revision No. 2433 of 2009 -3- seen the x-ray report with respondent no. 2. Harjit Singh PW4, a pharmacist stated in cross-examination that x-ray report and x-ray films in question were in possession of concerned doctor who was supposed to send the same to the police. It was also stated that respondent no. 2 was discharging duty as dispenser i.e. to distribute medicines as per prescription of the doctors. Sheela Devi PW5, Clerk of Civil Hospital, Kotakpura also made similar statement. Dr. Sukhwinderjit Singh PW6, who prepared x-ray report stated that the report was to be sent to concerned doctor who had conducted medico legal examination but this witness could not tell the name of the person through whom x-ray report was sent to doctor who had prepared MLR. This witness also stated that duty of respondent no. 2 was to assist the doctor in emergency while attending a patient or to distribute medicines to the patients. Thus, no evidence has been led to establish that x-ray report was in the possession of respondent no. 2 or that respondent no. 2 was supposed to send the same to the police. In addition to the aforesaid x-ray report was to be sent to the police and was not to be delivered to the complainant. It was the duty of the police official concerned to have collected x-ray report from the hospital. Respondent no. 2 even if he had possessed x-ray report could not have handed over the same to the petitioner. It is also worth mentioning that there is presumption of innocence in favour of every accused. Said presumption gets strengthened and reinforced by judgment of acquittal of the trial court. In the instant case, impugned judgment of acquittal cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in exercise of Criminal Revision No. 2433 of 2009 -4- revisional jurisdiction. Reasons mentioned herein before for acquitting respondent no. 2 cannot be said to be insufficient. Moreover, even if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be accepted and an accused cannot be convicted merely on the ground that another view is also possible. Moreover, in revision petition finding of acquittal cannot be converted into finding of conviction in view of statutory bar created by section 401(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revisional jurisdiction is comparatively limited in contrast to appellate jurisdiction but even in appeal against acquittal, the accused cannot be convicted even if two views are possible. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 28, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'