Criminal Revision No. 2037 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2037 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.8.2009 Rajinder Kumar .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner-accused is before this Court challenging his conviction by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, which was upheld by the learned court below. Briefly, the facts are that Lt. Col. M. P. Malhotra-complainant wrote a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala alleging therein that after showing fake and fabricated documents, Gurnaib Singh induced the complainant to pay Rs. 4,95,000/- for training four boys in sports Baseball and he assured the boys to train in India for three months and after that those boys were to be sent to USA for three months and finally all the boys were to be settled in USA permanently. Gurnaib Singh also gave the assurance through his wife, son Bobby and his close associate in Delhi, i.e., the petitioner, who claims to be the Assistant Coach in Swimming. The amount was paid in four instalments, but the accused neither fulfilled the assurance nor returned the money to the complainant. From the enquiries, it revealed that petitioner along with other accused used to cheat innocent persons by showing fake and forged documents and induced them to pay huge amount for sending them abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that star witness in the case, namely, Lt. Col. M. P. Malhotra having not been examined, the case set up by the prosecution was not proved and as a result, the petitioner was entitled to be acquitted. The main accused was Gurnaib Singh. He was not even arrested. It is only the petitioner, who has been convicted, even though he has no role to play. Criminal Revision No. 2037 of 2009 [2] After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Both the courts below have considered the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence threadbare. PW1- Prem Singh had categorically stated that he was introduced by Gurnaib Singh to the petitioner. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- was handed over to him in April, 1998. In May, 1998, another sum of Rs. 90,000/- was handed over, besides the passports. Even in the exhaustive cross-examinations of PW1- Prem Kumar and PW2- Manjit Singh, no dent could be made in the story of the prosecution and the case set up was proved beyond doubt. Merely because Lt. Col. M. P. Malhotra and Om Parkash were not examined by the prosecution will not be of any benefit to the petitioner, as even without their evidence, the case set up by the prosecution was proved. Once the evidence, which was produced on record, was clinching, there was no need for leading further evidence. No material has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, which could enable this Court to take a view that the findings recorded by the learned court below, on appreciation of evidence, puts any dent in the conclusion reached by the learned court below. Merely because a different opinion can be taken on the same set of evidence is not sufficient to invoke revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 6.8.2009 mk