IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2005 Date of decision: February 07, 2011 Jasbir Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Initially, four accused were convicted by the trial court vide its judgment dated 1.6.2002 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 420 IPC. However, in appeal, the accused Surjit Kaur was acquitted of the charges framed against her, whereas, accused Iqbal Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') was upheld. The allegations in brief are that on 2.2.1999, Swaran Ram and Jagjiwan Ram submitted a written complaint alleging therein that they had given Rs.90,000/- each to the accused on the pretext that they would be sent abroad. However, neither they had been sent abroad nor money has been returned to them. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, enquiry was conducted and opinion Ex.DA was obtained, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court. They were charged under Sections 420 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Swaran Ram (PW1), Jagjiwan Ram (PW2), Gurdip Singh (PW3), Charanjit Singh (PW4), Sukhdev Singh (PW5), Nirmal Chand (PW6), Navin Sood (PW7), ASI Mohan Lal (PW8), Gurdev Kaur (PW9), Onkar Singh (PW10), HC Tarsem Singh (PW11), SI Gian Chand (PW12) and Mohan Lal (PW13). Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2005 -2- *** When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. The trial resulted into conviction. However, in appeal, the accused Surjit Kaur was acquitted of the charges while extending benefit of doubt, whereas, conviction and sentence passed against Jasbir Singh and Paramjit Singh was ordered to be maintained. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused Iqbal Singh died during the pendency of the appeal. Arguments heard. Record perused. The first contention raised by the petitioners is that in view of Section 10 and 24 of Immigration Act, 1983, no prosecution could be launched against the petitioners. But, the contention lacks merit. Section 10 of the Act provides only that, who want to carry on the business of recruitment of Indian labour in the foreign country, have to get a valid certificate for the purpose from the Registering Authority. The section is meant to regulate the business of sending recruits and labour abroad in a bulk, but that has nothing to do with the offence of cheating committed by them in their own country. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is a general provision for holding the person guilty who cheat a person and induce him to part with some money or valuable security on the false promise to do which he could not legally do and to omit to do which he was obliged to do. Similarly, Section 24 of the Act has also no application and do not stand as a shelter for the accused against the offence committed by them. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a lot of delay in lodging the FIR. No doubt, the money was received by the accused in the month of April, 1998 onwards and the application was given on 2.2.1999 and the FIR was registered on 15.8.1999, yet, the delay in such cases does not matter much. The people who having been exploited in this manner always prefer to make an endeavour to receive money back then to register a case against the persons at fault. It appears that the complainants in this case had been wondering here and there to persuade the accused to pay back the money, but ultimately having failed to get their money back, they felt cheated that Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2005 -3- *** neither they were sent abroad nor the money was returned, therefore, they got the case registered. As regards the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainants Swaran Ram and Jagjivan Ram have failed to establish if the amount of Rs.90,000/- each was paid by them to the accused, in this regard it may be observed that both the courts below have duly appreciated and discussed the evidence led by the prosecution that Swaran Ram (PW1) and Jagjiwan Ram (PW2) had delivered a sum of Rs.90,000/- each to Jasbir Singh and Paramjit Singh and the other accused. Swaran Ram (PW1) had stated that Jasbir Singh had induced him to part with the money stating that he was going to Italy through travel agent Gulzar Singh and if he was interested then he could also be sent. Jasbir Singh had taken the full responsibility regarding the offer. He has further stated that the total money to be paid by him was Rs.2,25,000/-, out of which he had to pay Rs.90,000/- in advance. Thus, on allurement by Jasbir Singh he had given his passport, 12 photographs and Rs.20,000/- to him on 18.4.1998, then Rs.3000/- on 30.4.1998 and thereafter in June, 1998 he paid Rs.27,000/- to Jasbir Singh in the presence of his father Iqbal Singh (accused since expired). Thereafter, he had given Rs.30,000/- in the month of May, 1998 to Paramjit Singh accused who is the maternal nephew of Jasbir Singh in the presence of Surjit Kaur wife of Iqbal Singh. On 10.6.1998, another sum of Rs.10,000/- was delivered to Paramjit Singh. Similarly, Jagjiwan Ram (PW2) had disclosed that in the year 1997, Jasbir Singh had taken his passport for sending him to Italy on the assurance that he will get a job for him in Italy. In July, 1998, as allured by him he had paid Rs.20,000/- to Paramjit Singh on his asking. Then, again he had paid Rs.20,000/- to Jasbir Singh in the year 1998. In August, 1998 he had again given Rs.50,000/- to Paramjit Singh and Jasbir Singh at Jalandhar. Testimonies of these two witnesses stand corroborated by Gurdeep Singh (PW3), Charanjit Singh (PW4) and Sukhdev Singh brother-in-law (wife's brother Swaran Ram) (PW5), Navin Sood Accounts Clerk (PW6). The documents Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/F placed on the record prove that the money was withdrawn on the relevant dates by the witness for helping Jagjiwan Ram to send him abroad. If the entire evidence is gone into, then Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2005 -4- *** it stands duly established that money was given to Jasbir Singh and Paramjit Singh on their demand by Jagjiwan Ram and Swaran Ram under the allurement that they would be sent abroad. Mere non placing of the application given by them to panchayat hardly effects the prosecution case in the presence of the positive evidence on the record. Both the courts below have returned the concurrent findings with regard to the guilt of the accused. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court. Consequently finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur for compliance. February 07, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge