Crl.Rev.No.1445 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.1445 of 2007 Date of decision: 16.01.2009 Daya Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Vide this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 13.4.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby the accused-respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.( “IPC” for short). The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Daya Ram son of Mool Chand lodged a complaint Ex.PW-2/A alleging therein that he is the Crl.Rev.No.1445 of 2007 2 resident of Dev Nagar, Sonepat. About three years back, in May 1995, his daughter was engaged with Ramesh son of Tara Chand. At the ceremony of “God Bharai”, an amount of Rs.35,000/- approximately was spent. Ramesh is residing in Morni Hills, Panchkula and he wrote a letter that he will get employment in the last months of the year 1998 and thereafter, he will solemnize the marriage. He was residing with his brother Naresh. About one year back, Naresh came to them and demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- for getting employment of Ramesh and he assured to return the amount before the marriage. The amount of Rs.50,000/- was given to accused Naresh. On 18.6.1998, Ramesh solemnized the marriage with a girl of Morni Hills. It has been further averred by the complainant that the accused persons have committed cheating and have misrepresented. The complainant has been waiting for the marriage of his daughter for the last about 3 ½ years. On the basis of this complaint, the FIR was registered and the investigations were carried out. SI Ram Parkash reached the place of occurrence where he prepared the rough site plan with correct marginal notes and recorded the statements of the witnesses and did other usual acts of investigations. After completion of all the formalities, Crl.Rev.No.1445 of 2007 3 the accused was challaned by Ram Kishan Inspector, then SHO, Police Station City, Sonepat, vide his report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the prosecution had been successfully proved and the trial Court had rightly convicted the accused under Sections 406, 420 IPC. The Appellate Court had erred in acquitting accused/respondent No.2 of the charge framed against him. The case of the petitioner-complainant was that Naresh had demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- for getting employment for Ramesh and had assured that the amount would be returned before marriage. The said amount was given to Naresh. Ramesh, however, solemnized marriage with another girl. The petitioner-complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence on record that an amount of Rs.50,000/- had ever been handed over to the accused/respondent No.2. Babita admitted in her cross-examination that the amount of Rs.50,000/- had been borrowed by her father from Ishwar but the said person was not examined. Babita had already got married with Ashok and was having two children. No member of the Panchayat was examined by the complainant to substantiate his story regarding marriage of Ramesh with another girl. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat had rightly held that the dispute, if any, was of mere civil nature as respondent No.2 had undertaken to return the loan prior to the Crl.Rev.No.1445 of 2007 4 marriage. It was not a case where respondent No.2 had taken the money on account of assurance of marriage. It has been held by the Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee 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. In the present case, no ground for remanding the matter to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat is made out. A finding of acquittal, as per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 16, 2009 anita