Crl. Rev. No. 1441 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1441 of 2011 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: July 07, 2011 Krishan Pal .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This revision petition is directed against judgment of conviction recorded by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla convicting the petitioner for commission of an offence under Section 420 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of ` 2,000 (in default SI for 15 days). The petitioner carried an appeal. The appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was not a witness to the agreement and, therefore could not have been convicted. It has also been argued that the petitioner is not related to Ram Gopal. Signatures of petitioner were taken on the agreement at a later stage. It has also been contended that the person, who impersonated as Ram Gopal could never be identified. 3. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. Crl. Rev. No. 1441 of 2011 2 4. The relevant discussion finds mention in para nos. 21 to 25 of the judgment rendered by the lower appellate court. An agreement was executed at the instance of the petitioner who brought a person to the complainant. The said person was projected as Ram Gopal. The petitioner projected that he knew Ram Gopal. PW-1 Nachhattar Singh has clearly stated that he knew the person brought as Ram Gopal only through the petitioner. The agreement contains the signatures of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot succeed on the premise that he was not a witness to the agreement or that he was not involved in the transaction. The Courts below have recorded a finding on the strength of statements of PW-5 Mahinder Singh and PW-6 Bhagwan Singh to the effect that earnest money to the tune of ` 1,00,000 was received by the petitioner. It was only the petitioner who could identify Ram Gopal as the signatures of the real Ram Gopal could not be matched with the signatures on the agreement which were of the person who impersonated Ram Gopal at the instance of the petitioner. The evidence in the above regards has been found to be trustworthy. This Court in revisional jurisdiction has no reason to record a finding otherwise. 5. Learned counsel has not pointed out from the judgments that any piece of evidence has been perversely read or relevant piece of evidence has not been considered. 6. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. 7. Dismissed. 07.07.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE