IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2443 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 26, 2011 Mahavir Chand .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab for respondent-State. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court, vide judgment dated 16.5.2008, convicted and sentenced the accused- respondent to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of `500/- under Section 447 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of `500/- under Section 506 IPC. However, the appellate court, vide its judgment dated 16.3.2009 reversed the judgment and acquitted him of the charges framed against him. Now the complainant- petitioner has come up in revision against the said judgment. The allegations in nutshell, as levelled by the complainant- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the complainant') are that about 2- 1/'2 years prior to the occurrence, he had lent a sum of `1,00,000/- to the accused- respondent Dharaminder Singh (herein referred as, 'the respondent') and in lieu of that he had executed a promissory note and receipt in his favour. Thereafter, 1- ½ years prior to the occurrence the respondent had invited the complainant to his house on the pretext that he had sold his land and wanted to pay off the loan and he should bring the promissory note and the receipt with him. As such, the complainant went to his house along with the promissory note and the receipt. When the complainant took out the promissory note and the receipt, the respondent snatched it and tore out the same. When the complainant insisted, the respondent threatened him with his gun and asked the former to leave the place quietly failing which he would be shot dead. Some pieces of the torn promissory note remained in Crl. Revision No. 2443 of 2009 -2- *** the hands of the complainant and some of them remaining in the hands of the respondent. The occurrence took place in front of Rattan Singh and Bakshish Singh Dohla who had accompanied him. On the aforesaid allegations, a case was registered against the respondent and investigated. The trial court convicted and sentenced the respondent for the offence under Sections 477/506 IPC, however, the appellate court vide judgment dated 16.3.2009 by dissenting from the judgment passed by the trial court acquitted him of the charges framed against him. As a matter of fact, the judgment passed by the appellate court appears to be sketchy one. The prosecution in order to prove the case against the respondent had examined Mahavir Chand (PW1), Rattan Dev (PW2) and ASI Sukhwinder Singh (PW3). The respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted the promissory note but stated that one Kuldip Singh had to owe money to the complainant and not the respondent and in that regard promissory note was scribed over which he was the witness. The complainant while appearing in the witness box has proved the execution of the promissory note and proved some pieces of the torn promissory note as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 but the First Appellate Court without assigning reasons for disturbing the judgment passed by trial court and believing the respondent without any further evidence to prove the defence plea as set up by him has acted in an erroneous manner. The First Appellate Court has not discussed the eye witness account and has not assigned reasons for disbelieving them, thus it appears that it has exceeded its jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the First Appellate Court that the limitation of the said promissory note and receipt had already expired is also without recording any basis. As such, this impugned judgment having been passed by overlooking the material evidence and also against the evidence led on the record, has to be held as perverse and against the facts as such, the same deserves to be reversed. In the circumstances of the case, this petition is accepted, impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remitted back to the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh after hearing both the parties. Crl. Revision No. 2443 of 2009 -3- *** The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 7.11.2011. September 26, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge