Crl.Revision No. 1050 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision No. 1050 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.2.2009 Kanti Lal Shah .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Sidhu, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State. *** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present criminal revision has been filed against judgment dated 17.12.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby Jai Kishan Chhabra and Sanjiv Kumar,respondents No.2 and 3, have been acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 406 IPC. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Shilpi Industries Surat had a business dealing with Jyoti Textiles Amritsar. The proprietors of Jyoti Textile are Jai Kishan Chhabra and his son Sanjiv Kumar, who are respondents in the present petition. As per statement of Parkash Narang, Manager of Shilpi Industries, the cloth was being sent by Shilpi Industries to Jyoti Textiles and entire cloth used to go through Green Roadways Transport, Amritsar. In the year 1999, Jai Kishan Chhabra and Sanjiv Chhabra (respondents No.2 and 3) closed their shop and Rakesh Narang Manager of Shilpi Industries, had asked them to make the payments of Crl.Revision No. 1050 of 2008 [2] previous bills which comes to Rs.11,64,306/- but the respondents showed their inability to make payment. Thereafter, Shilpi Industries came to know that the respondents started a new firm by the name and style of 'J.J.Textiles' and in December 1999, they declared their firm insolvent and in connivance with the Cloth Associations, they cleared the dues of parties at the rate of 25 paise but no information was given to Shilpi Industries. The Manager of Shilpa Industries approached the Cloth Merchant Association, Amritsar and respondent No.2 gave in writing that they owed Rs.11,64,306/- to Shilpi Industries and till the registration of the case, nothing was paid by the accused. During investigation, allegations were found to be correct and the case was registered against accused-respondents No.2 and 3. During investigation, it was found that cloth was supplied to the petitioner through Green Carrier Transport through self bilti.A petition was also filed by accused-respondents for quashing of FIR in the High Court where proceedings of the case were stayed but ultimately the petition was dismissed. On completion of the investigation and other formalities, challan was put in Court and on finding a prima facie case, charge under Section 406 IPC was framed against the respondents. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court vide order dated 17th December, 2007, acquitted the accused-respondents of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present criminal revision has been filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal of the accused-respondents. Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the trial Court had closed the prosecution evidence without examining the most important witness namely, Rakesh Narang, in spite of an application Crl.Revision No. 1050 of 2008 [3] supported by medical certificate having been filed as he was suffering from a serious ailment. The trial Court without taking into consideration that fact had closed the prosecution evidence and the accused -respondents were acquitted of the charge because of non-examination of the said witness. He further argued that the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused has observed that the prosecution was not able to show entrustment which was essential ingredient under Section 405 IPC. It is submitted that while arriving at this finding, the trial Court had not taken into account the ample evidence on record showing entrustment of the goods to the accused. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment dated 17.12.2007 passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents and no case under Section 405 IPC was made out as the only document relied upon by the petitioner was a letter Annexure PW-4/A written to SSP, Amritsar, by Kanti Lal Shah for getting payment and on that basis, a case under Section 406 IPC was registered. The petitioner did not produce any other document to show that any business transaction between the parties had taken place and no bills or bilitties were placed on record to prove such transactions. Nothing has come out from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and the prosecution has totally failed to prove the offence under Section 405 IPC. The trial Court observed on the basis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the document produced on record that no case under Section 405 IPC was made out. Moreover, the trial Court has rightly observed that the petitioner should have availed a civil remedy for recovery of the said amount. Crl.Revision No. 1050 of 2008 [4] For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any legal infirmity to interfere in the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. ( DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE February 17, 2009 raghav