IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No.1834 of 2008 Date of Decision: 1.9.2009 Lakhmi Chand and another. ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 16.4.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') whereby respondent nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted of the charge framed against them in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 48 dated 19.9.1992 under Sections 448, 454, 480 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, `the I.P.C.') at Police Station, Bareta. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the findings of the trial Court are erroneous and acquittal awarded to respondent nos. 2 to 8 is based on reasons which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Crl. Revision Petition No.1834 of 2008 -2- .... A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that respondent nos. 2 to 8 faced criminal proceedings under Sections 448, 454, 480 of the I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioners. There was apparently a sale transaction between the petitioners and respondent nos. 2 to 4 pursuant to which the possession of the shop in question was handed over to the latter. However, this fact was seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who contended that no possession was handed over to respondent nos. 2 to 8 and the material which was lying in the shop in question belonged to the petitioners. The trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment, has referred to the sale deeds dated 22.4.1992 ( Exhibits D8 and D9) and dated 12.6.1992 (Exhibit D10) in which there was a clear recital that the possession of the shop had been handed over to the vendors. This recital clearly proves that the petitioners were not in possession of the shop and hence, their plea that their material was lying therein which was illegally removed does not seem to be correct. There is no evidence that this recital in the sale deeds had not been acted upon. Once this fact has been established and there being no other evidence contrary to it, I am of the opinion that the averments which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that material belonging to the petitioners was lying in the shop in question, do not seem to be correct. On the basis of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed while upholding the impugned judgment. September 01,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge