IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Revision No. 92 OF 2004 Harpal Singh Sandhu ……Revisionist. Versus State of Uttaranchal …….Opposite Party. Present: Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2002 Harpal Singh Sandhu Vs. State of Uttaranchal. In the said judgment, the decision given by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun on 1.10.2002 was confirmed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate tried a Criminal Case no. 883 of 2002 State Vs. Harpal Singh Sandhu and others for the offence of Sections 406 & 420 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station Kotwali and that trial ended in conviction. Accused/revisionist Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu was convicted under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment under Section 406 I.P.C. and four years’ imprisonment along with fine of ` 500/- under Section 420 I.P.C., while Smt. Indu Arora was absolved of the charges of offence of Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Convict Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu was in Jail for almost four years at the time of passing the sentence against him, but he preferred an appeal aforementioned, which was resulted in dismissal. Feeling still aggrieved, Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu has filed this revision before this 2 Court against the concurrent findings of the courts below. 3. Having heard the learned counsel of the revisionist and learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand, it appears that Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu in conspiracy with his wife proclaimed himself as the Director / Manager of some investment company named Agrarians Fields and Forests Limited, Chakrauta Road, Dehradun and instigated a number of persons to invest their cash in the company with the assurance to return the same at an excessive rate of interest after some stipulated time. In order to develop the credence in the heart and mind of the investors, they issued post dated cheques of the matured sum. The people believed them and one of the investor namely Sri Hemlal Gurung, who is the complainant in the instant case deposited the amount of `1,00,000 (one time) on 15.4.1997 with the revisionist. While the cheques were presented for encashment in order to take the maturity value, they were dishonoured by the Bank and then it was revealed that Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu in fact did not have any genuine account with the Bank, wherefor he drew the cheque and issued the same to investor Sri Hemlal Gurung.. Consequently, an FIR was lodged, matter was investigated and charge sheet was submitted against Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu and his better half Smt. Indu Arora for the offence of Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. The trial resulted in conviction of Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu while Smt. Indu Arora was absolved of the charges of offence of Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., which was concurred by the appellate court. 4. Learned counsel has argued that revisionist Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu did not have any bad intention at the time of proclaiming himself as the Director / Manager 3 of the company instigating the investment in the same. This argument is wholly unsubstantial because it was only Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu, who received the cash on behalf of the company and issued the post dated cheques to the investors with the assurance that the cash will be returned to them at an excessive rate of interest. The investors were allured at the instigation of Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu and his wife. He is the real beneficiary of the entire episode of cheating. Whole evidence (documentary as well as oral) is very strong, which has been produced and relied in and by the courts below. The argument that Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu was simply a Director / Manager of the Investment Company, so he should not be held liable for the act done by him, is quite shallow and cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. There is no infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence as well as the findings of the guilt recorded by both the courts below. This revision is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 11.10.2011 Rathour