Criminal Revision No.2488 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.2488 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.01.2009 Manohar Singh ......Petitioner Versus Gurjant Singh and another .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vikram Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh on 15.9.2006. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Factual syntax of the prosecution version is that one application was received by SHO, Police Station Sherpur against Avtar Singh, Dev Singh and Gurjant Singh for the registration of the FIR. It was alleged in the application by Manohar Singh complainant that he is resident of Criminal Revision No.2488 of 2008 (O&M) 2 village Inna Bajwa and earned his livelihood by doing the labour. He is illiterate. His brother-in-law Mohinder Singh was employed in armed forces, who was expired. His wife received Rs.4 lacs being legal heirs of Mohinder Singh. The accused Dev Singh and Gurjant Singh residents of Inna Bajwa enticed him to part with the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- on the pretext of getting him route permit from Avtar Singh of Village Manal. They promised to purchase a Bus by spending the amount themselves, but when he asked the accused Dev Singh and Gurjant Singh to settle the account, they put off the matter on one pretext or other. The accused did not get any route permit of Mini bus, in his name. Accused Dev Singh and Gurjant Singh admitted before the Gram Panchayat that they had taken Rs.2,20,000/- from him on the pretext of getting the route permit, which was not taken by them. The accused Dev Singh and Gurjant Singh defrauded him for the amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- in connivance with Avtar Singh. They also told him that loss has been caused to them in the business of running the bus. On the basis of the complaint received from the complainant, FIR was registered against the accused. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of necessary formalities, challan was Criminal Revision No.2488 of 2008 (O&M) 3 presented against the accused Gurjant Singh and Dev Singh in the Court.” A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that Manohar Singh-complainant was declared hostile during trial. He also denied that he had moved any application to the police against accused Avtar Singh. Although, as per the complainant, accused had acknowledged their liability to re-pay Rs.2,20,000/- in the presence of Karnail Singh, Kuljit Kaur, Bachitar Singh, Jagroup Singh and Sukhdev Singh, but no effort was made to examine the said members and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat by the prosecution. The complainant also conceded that he had not filed any suit for recovery of Rs.2,20,000/- against the accused. Joginder Singh (PW- 2) admitted in his cross-examination that no money transaction took place in his presence between the accused and the complainant. He also admitted that he was not called by the Gram Panchayat. PW-3 Nazar Singh also admitted that no amount was paid in his presence. In these circumstance, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused as the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from the vice of illegality and calls for no interference. It is a settled proposition of law that this Court can interfere in revision against judgment of acquittal only if a case was made out for re-trial because in view of Section 401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into Criminal Revision No.2488 of 2008 (O&M) 4 a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE January 16, 2009 anita