CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2633 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 09, 2011 Chaman Lal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Gourave Bhayyia Gilhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Through the present revision petition, the petitioner has impugned his conviction for an offence under Section 420 IPC and 24 of the Immigration Act, for which he has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year coupled with fine of `2000/- and imprisonment for one month under Section 24 of the Immigration Act. Both sentences are to run concurrently. Petitioner alongwith Sukhdev Singh was made to face this trial under Section 420 IPC and 24 of the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2633 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: Immigration Act. Complainant Gurinder Singh has moved an application before SSP, Kapurthala, alleging that petitioner, Chaman Lal, was working as a Travel Agent and had allured the complainant for sending him to Italy. The deal with struck for `3,50,000/-. Petitioner, Chaman Lal had come to the house of the complainant alongwith his co-accused Sukhdev Singh and had taken `1,50,000/-. The complainant thereafter was kept at Delhi for a period of three months. Both the accused had visited the house of the complainant and took the remaining amount of `2,00,000/- on 1.9.2000. The complainant thereafter was sent to Azerbyan (Russia). He was kept with one Mohare (acquaintance of the accused) and was given stipend for one month. Thereafter Mohare has gone away, leaving the complainant to be on his own. The complainant, thus, spent 13 months on his own and then came back to India on his own expenses. When he contacted the petitioner and his co-accused for return of his amount, they refused and again offered the petitioner to send to Italy. This time the complainant refused and demanded his money back. On refusal, he has lodged the FIR. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses. On the basis of evidence, the Court found that prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against Chaman Lal. In fact, the petitioner had introduced the complainant to his co-accused Sukhdev Singh. The CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2633 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: complainant has specifically stated that he paid a sum of `1,50,000/- to Chaman Lal in the presence of his co-accused where `2,00,000/- were given to the person acquainted to Sukhdev Singh. PW2 was examined to depose that he had seen Chaman Lal and his co-accused in the house of the complainant. PW3 has also confirmed this fact that the amount was paid to Chaman Lal and Sukhdev Singh. In view of this evidence, no case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction is made out. Revisional jurisdiction is severally restricted and interference in exercise of this jurisdiction is not called for even if there is a possibility of another view which can be taken on the basis of evidence. As a matter of last resort, the counsel for the petitioner made a desperate attempt to plead leniency in the award of sentence. Though, I was not inclined to accept this prayer but even adjourned the case reluctantly to enable the counsel to pay the amount to the complainant and plead for leniency/mercy thereafter. Even on the adjourned date, the counsel could not succeed in either arranging the money or settling the issue with the complainant and thereafter only pleaded for reduction in the sentence. Such like offences are rather too prevalent in this part of the Country, where innocent people are deceived in routine in large number. Any leniency in such like matters would make such serious offences against society to look CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2633 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: venal. In fact, persons working under the garb of travel agents are fleecing poor people of their hard earned money and many a times, the money was arranged by way of loans. This illegal business is too prevalent but such persons are caught by law occasionally only. Such cases would not deserve any leniency. The revision is accordingly dismissed. November 09, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE