IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No. 1910 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 30, 2010 BANTA SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS DIAL SINGH & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 3 to 6. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed in challenge to judgment dated 17.7.2008, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira, whereby respondents No.1 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 379, 148, 149, 506, Indian Penal Code. One of the reasons assigned for acquittal is the delay of 9 days in lodging of the FIR. While the case set up by the prosecution is that delay in lodging the FIR is on account of an attempt to effect compromise between the parties, PW-1 Banta Singh (complainant) has stated that he had gone to lodge the FIR and had filed an application on the day next to the day of occurrence. PW-4 ASI Surinder Mohan, however, stated that the Criminal Revision No. 1910 of 2008 2 first complaint received was on 21.5.2000 i.e. after 9 days of the incident. PW-5 ASI Daljit Singh also stated that the complaint was made to the police on 21.5.2000. PW-2 Hardeep Singh deposed that the matter was reported to the police on 12.5.2000. The trial court has also found the prosecution evidence in regard to the incident to be not plausible and trustworthy. No perverse reading of evidence has been shown. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material piece of evidence, which has been ignored by the trial court. A possible view has been taken by the trial court, which does not require any interference in revisional jurisdiction against the judgment of acquittal. The petition is dismissed. March 30, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?