Criminal Revision No.160 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.160 of 2006. Date of Decision : 25.2.2011. Nand Lal ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By judgment dated April 15th, 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, petitioner was convicted under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. He preferred an appeal. Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Tack Court, Bathinda by judgment dated January 18th, 2006 upheld his conviction but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from two years to six months and directed him to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation. Hence, the present revision. 2. Per prosecution case, petitioner was an employee of Sarvotam Authorized Finance Company Limited, Gandhi Market, Ludhiana (For short ''Finance Company''). He was posted at Bathinda. Sher Singh-complainant (PW-1) was neighbour of the petitioner. On December 27th, 1997, on petitioner's asking, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Finance Company. After one year, the Finance Company was to pay back the principal amount along with interest accrued thereon to the Criminal Revision No.160 of 2006 2 complainant on December 29th, 1998. On the agreed date, the amount was not paid to the complainant rather the principal amount along with interest of Rs.9000/- was deposited in the Company in the name of complainant, his wife Santosh Devi, son Manohar Lal and daughter Suman Rani vide receipts (Exhibits D-5 to D-8). The Company also issued receipts (Exhibits D-1 to D-4). The maturity date mentioned on the receipts was December 29th, 1999. The amount was not paid by the Company or the petitioner to the complainant inspite of serving notice (Exhibit D-9) to the company. The complainant, his wife, son and daughter also filed suit for recovery against the Finance Company vide plaints (Exhibits D-10 to D-13). The complainant filed complaint (Exhibit PA) before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda against the petitioner levelling allegations as mentioned above. First Information Report (Exhibit PW-3/B) was registered. 3. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sections 420/120-B and 506 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined Sher Singh (PW-1), Nand Kishore (PW-2), Hukam Singh (PW-3), Baldev Singh (PW-4) and Rachpal Singh (PW-5). 5. The petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. 6. In defence, he examined, Suhdev Singh, Constable (DW-1), Swaran Singh Constable (DW-2) and Saudagar Singh, Manger of the Finance Company (DW-3). Reliance was also placed on DDR No.53, copy of the Fixed Deposit Receipts (Exhibits DW-1/A), copy of the First Information Report No.26 (Exhibit DW- 2/A), the documents (Exhibits DW-1/D) and the copies of the plaints (Exhibits D-10 to D-13). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner deceived the complainant by dishonestly inducing him to pay amount to the Criminal Revision No.160 of 2006 3 Finance Company because from the evidence, it is proved that the petitioner was an employee of the Finance Company and the amount paid by the complainant was duly deposited in the company. 8. Hukam Chand (PW-3) was investigator of the case. He deposed that the petitioner was an employee of the Finance Company. The amount, which was allegedly paid by the complainant to him, was deposited in the Finance Company. The Finance Company also issued FDRs in the name of the complainant, his wife, son and daughter (Exhibits D-1 to D-4). He also admitted that initially, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid by the finance company along with the interest after one year. The interest accrued thereon was Rs.9000/-. Instead of paying the principal amount and the interest, the Finance Company issued receipts (Exhibits D-5 to D- 8) in the name of complainant and his family members on December 29th, 1998. On December 31st, 1998, FDRs (Exhibits D-1 to D-4) were issued in the name of complainant and his family members. In view of this clinching evidence of Hukam Chand (PW-3) coupled with the documentary evidence referred to above, there is no matter of doubt left that the petitioner was not the person who cheated the complainant rather it was the Finance Company who cheated him. The matter does not rest here. Saudagar Singh (DW-3) who was the Manager of the Finance Company at the relevant time also lodged FIR No. 26 on January 19th, 2000 (Exhibit DW-2/A) in Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda against the Managing Director of the Finance Company with regard to the fraud played upon by the company and its customers. The complainant issued notice (Exhibit D-9) and filed civil suits (Exhibits D-10 to D-13) against the Finance Company for the recovery of amount. It shows that he was aware of the fact that it was the Finance Company who had to make him the payment and not the petitioner. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that there was no wrongful loss caused to the complainant nor there was wrongful gain to the petitioner. Thus, prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner dishonestly deceived the complainant to pay the Criminal Revision No.160 of 2006 4 amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Finance Company. The Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. 10. Hence, the revision is accepted. The judgments under challenge are set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 25.2.2011. SN