IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 299 of 2000 Date of decision: March 22, 2010 Suraj Kant Dutt and another .. Petitioners Vs. Pal Dass and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. Neha Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Trikha, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Vide judgment dated 19.2.1994, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, the six accused-respondents were convicted and sentenced under Sections 499/500/441/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, whereas, accused-respondent Norata Dass was ordered to be released on probation of good conduct. However, appeal preferred by them was accepted. The complainant has preferred this revision petition. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that in the month of June, 1986, accused-respondents No.1 to 4 had purchased one Harsha Tractor bearing engine No.649763, chassis No.850827, vide invoice No.10263 dated 13.6.1986, from M/s Chaudhary Service Station, Malerkotla Road, Khanna of which the complainant-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') was partner. The said tractor was registered in the name of the respondent No.1. In the last week of January, 1987, the respondents No.1 to 4 along with other respondents, in connivance with each other started harassing the complainant alleging that the complainant had sold old tractor Criminal Revision No. 299 of 2000 -2- *** to them. They started threatening the complainant to give new tractor. They had taken the matter with Bhartiya Kishan Union and that Union had started indulging in hooliganism against the complainant and started holding gherao of the complainant of the business premises and also started raising slogans against the complainant and had also burnt effigy of the complainant in front of his residential house. They started blocking his business premises with an intention to insult and defame the complainant. Abusing and provocative language was used by them addressing the complainant as “thags” and “thieves”. The complainant had also made a complaint to the SDO (Civil), Khanna on 11.2.1987 and SDO (Civil) had asked the company to check up the tractor. S. Nirmal Singh, Assistant Manager of the company had checked the tractor and found the same as genuine and had been delivered to the respondent No.3 in a brand new condition, but defect was very minor as there was free play in the clutch paddle which was removed free of costs. It has been further alleged that as per report made by Nirmal Singh on 24.3.1987 before SDO (Civil), the complaint filed by the respondents was disposed of. The respondents held Dharna from 18.3.1987 to 11.4.1987 blocking and preventing the complainant from doing their business. The respondents had also published pamphlets and distributed the same to the public in general thereby lowering down the reputation of the complainant and thereby defaming him. After recording preliminary evidence, the respondents were summoned and notice of accusation under Section 500 IPC was served upon them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant led evidence. The accused were examined Criminal Revision No. 299 of 2000 -3- *** under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they also led defence. The trial ended in conviction. However, the appeal preferred by the respondents was accepted. Arguments heard. Having gone through the records of the case, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected warranting interference by this court. The First Appellate Court appears to have discussed all the points very elaborately. No other view is possible than what was formed by the First Appellate Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. March 22, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge