Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2007 Date of decision: 16.02.2009 Amrik Kaur ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.S **** SABINA, J. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. Sukhdev Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Manjit Kaur along with Jaspal Singh were tried for an offence under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC for short) in FIR No.131 dated 20.11.1998 registered at Police Station Islamabad, Amritsar. However, they were acquitted of the charge framed against them vide judgment dated 30.1.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar. Aggrieved by the same, Amrik Kaur (widow of the complainant Harjit Singh Dhillon)- petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2007 2 The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Briefly the facts as are narrated in the report of the police are that the complainant Harjit Singh Dhillon s/o Gulab Singh Dhillon resident of Nivi Patti, Kot Khalsa, Distt. Amritsar and he running a General Karyana shop at the above given address and the owner of this shop is Manjit Kaur widow of late S.Gurcharan Singh resident of Nivi Patti, Kot Khalsa, Amritsar. And the shop is being run by the complainant for the last 7/8 years. The owner of this shop namely Smt. Manjit Kaur has filed a suit for the ejectment petition of the complainant from the shop in question and which remained pending in the Court of the then Civil Judge (Jr.Division) Sh.Gurjant Singh. That on dated 18.11.1998 when the complainant after closing his shop had gone to his house in safe and sound conditions and the shop was closed on account of the fact that the son of the complainant was lying admitted in the Emergency ward of the Hospital at Gurdaspur due to the fact that he met with accident and the complainant had gone to the said hospital to look after his son. On the return of the complainant he saw in the morning at 10 a.m., that the articles lying the shop of the complainant are missing and in place of the articles of the shop one Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2007 3 Guru Granth Sahib is lying in the shop and the articles lying in the shop have been stolen by breaking open the back gate of the shop in possession of the complainant and all these articles have stolen by the accused Manjit Kaur, Sukhdev Singh s/o late S.Gurcharan Singh, Angrej Singh s/o late S.Gurcharan Singh and Dilbagh Singh s/o late S.Gurcharan Singh and Jassa Singh Tempu Wala who in fact is the tenant under Manjit Kaur and all these accused by their mutual conspiracy have stolen all these articles and all those articles have been misappropriated by these accused and the said articles which have been stolen by the accused have been kept by the accused in a concealed position and the complainant had asked the accused Manjit Kaur as to where those articles have been hidden by these accused and all this asking of the complainant the accused stated that they are not to return the articles but the accused have refused to accede to the genuine request of the complainant and the accused persons started threatening that they would not return the articles of the complainant. But the accused persons started threatening that they would not return those articles come what may and all the accused started abusing the complainant by using filthy language. And the accused must be proceeded according to the law. At Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2007 4 this instance of the complainant the police party headed by HC Ram Lubhaya and other police officials were present at Chowk Kot Khalsa in connection with patrolling and checking of the bad persons and the police party had held a Nakka. The complainant produced the application/complaint before Baldev Singh ASI which was marked to the P.S. Islamabad for the purpose of enquiry and on enquiry it revealed that in place of the articles lying in the shop the Guru Granth Sahib was lying. From the contents of the complaint it clearly transpires that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 457/380 IPC. The documents were prepared during course of investigation in which the rough site plan of occurrence and various other memos were prepared and the statement of the witnesses were recorded and thereafter the completion of challan the same was sent to the court for the purpose of trying the case against the accused under Section 457/380 IPC.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court had erred in acquitting respondent Nos. 2 to 5 of the charge framed against them. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that PW-1 Baljit Kaur, while appearing in the witness box, has not supported the prosecution case. PW-3 Jagtar Singh had deposed Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2007 5 that he was the resident of village Kot Khalsa. There was a karyana shop of Harjit Singh Dhillon opposite his house. About two years ago at about 12.30 a.m. his daughters were returning to their house after attending some ceremony. When he opened the door of his house, he saw a tractor trolly loaded with karyana goods as well as counter of the shop of Harjit Singh Dhillon and accused Sukhdev Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Angrej Singh, Bhola and mother of Sukhdev Singh were present there. On the next day he came to know that the goods loaded on the tractor trolly were stolen goods. He further deposed that the accused had threatened him not to disclose this incident to anybody. The trial Court had observed that the testimony of this witness could not be relied upon because his statement was based on hearsay evidence. As per this witness he came to know in the morning that the goods loaded in the tractor trolly were stolen goods. Moreover, the said witness had enmity towards the accused as the accused had lodged proceedings against him under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short). During the pendency of the trial, complainant unfortunately died. Hence, he could not be examined during trial. Even the complaint made by the complainant was not proved by the prosecution during trial. In these circumstance, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted respondents No. 2 to 5 of the charge framed against them. The reasons given by the trial Court do not call for any interference. It has been held by the Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2007 6 vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C., a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 16, 2009 anita