In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 83 of 2009 Date of Decision:February 25, 2009 Baljour Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. D.S.Sandhu,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab *** SABINA, J. Prem -respondent No. 2 was tried for an offence under Section 328 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 5.5.2008. Respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Aggrieved by the same, complainant-Baljour Singh has filed the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2of its judgment, is as under:- “Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that Baljot Singh son of Suba Singh, resident of Giddarpindi P.S.Lohian, district Jalandhar, moved two applications No. 1195 dated 16.3.2005 and 1547pp dated 2.4.2005 to the S.S.P., Amritsar. The contents of both the applications are that on 12.3.2005, at Crl. Revision No. 83 of 2009 -2- about 1 PM, his truck bearing registration No. PB 08 U 9871 came to National Cold Store, Amritsar, from Barhanpur (MP) with raw vbanana. They were unloading the raw banana in the cold store. One person of 26 years of age came to him and said that he is driving the mini truck of proprietor of cold store and he had given Rs. 26,200/- towards fare. The above said young person brought tea in three glasses from within the cold store. That person handed over one glass of tea to him and one glass of tea to the driver of the truck for drinking. He himself also consumed one glass of tea. The Manager of cold store standing nearby asked him to take his person to Fatehabad. He has to receive the fare of the vehicle from the place. After taking tea from the cold store and when they came on the road with the truck, he and his driver became unconscious. Thereafter, that young boy who was sitting in the truck took out Rs. 26.200/- of fare and another amount of Rs. 14,000/- in cash already lying in his pocket and his Nokia Mobile Phone No. 9815853971 and ran away. He also took away their truck and parked the same two Kms ahead of Jandiala on the Dhaba of Gurdaspuri. On the next day i9.e. 13.3.2005 at about 6 A.M., persons of Dhaba saw them in an unconscious condition and informed the police. The police took them in their van to Police Station, Daburji in un-conscious condition. Their relatives on coming to know about it got them admitted in Jain Hospital, Jandiala and from there, he was discharged on 14.3.2005. Thereafter, they Crl. Revision No. 83 of 2009 -3- informed P.S.Daburji but no action was taken. The applications were subjected to enquiry. On the basis of enquiry report, case was registered on 14.5.2005. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, arrested the accused and after the completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C was prepared. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rs. 26,200/-, Rs. 14,000/- and Nokia mobile of the petitioner were taken away by respondent No. 2 after administering some intoxicant substance in the tea to the petitioner. In the present case occurrence had taken place on 12.3.2005. Police reached the spot on 13.3.2005 and came to know that the petitioner was admitted in Jain Hospital, Jandiala. Petitioner was discharged on 14.3.2005. Statement of the petitioner was recorded on 20.3.2005. It was observed by the trial court that record of the ownership of the truck owned by PW-2, record of the ownership of the cold store, the record of ownership of raw banana were not taken in possession. Neither record regarding the payment of fare of Rs. 26,200/- nor the record of the Jain Hospital, Jandiala were taken in possession. In these circumstances, Learned trial court has rightly held that the investigation conducted in this case was totally defective. Learned trial court has further observed that statements of the witnesses and the applicant do not connect the accused with the cold store. There was no evidence as to who was the owner of the cold store or Crl. Revision No. 83 of 2009 -4- who was the manager of the same. Learned trial court has further observed that there was no evidence that PW-2 complainant and PW-3 Kulwinder Singh were ever subjected to medical examination. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly held that there was no evidence to prove that after the consumption of tea, as alleged by the prosecution witnesses, they had become unconscious. Learned trial court has further observed that there was no evidence on the file that the petitioner had ever made phone call from the Nokia mobile phone, in question. Statement of the petitioner, when he appeared in the witness box as PW-2 is Annexure P-2. A perusal of the cross examination of the statement of the petitioner reveals that he has deposed that in his statement recorded by the police on 20.5.2005 he had disclosed the time of departure from National Cold Store but the attention of the witnesses was drawn to his statement recorded by the police where it was not so mentioned He further deposed that he had not got recorded in his complaint Ex. PA that they had approached Jandiala police regarding the commission of offence. It has been held by Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect or procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. In the circumstances, learned trial court has rightly acquitted Crl. Revision No. 83 of 2009 -5- respondent No. 2-Prem Kumar of the charge framed against hhim by giving him the benefit of doubt. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401(3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The impugned judgments of the courts below do call for any interference. Petition is dismissed accordingly. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE February 25, 2009 PARAMJIT