Crl.Rev.No.2069 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.2069 of 2010 Date of decision:29.11.2010. Karamjit Singh ....................Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Sarabjit Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala,AAG Punjab. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Karamjit Singh-a Travel Agent has filed the instant revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC wherein challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 19.5.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)Amritsar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 17.8.2007 passed by JMIC,Amritsar, convicting the petitioner under Section 420 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for two years and pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months, was upheld. In nut shell, the case of the prosecution is that petitioner had taken a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- and a buffalo worth Rs.15,000/- from complainant in lieu of sending the complainant to Malaysia with a Crl.Rev.No.2069 of 2010 2 work permit for three years, however, instead he (complainant) was sent to Malaysia on a temporary visa for three months and after reaching Malaysia the complainant was arrested by the Malaysia police. On his return from Malaysia the complainant lodged FIR No.1 dated 2.1.2004 under Section 420 IPC, PS Kathunangal against the petitioner, in which he stands convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below did not properly appreciate the facts as ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not proved and as such the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner is liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel, I find no merit in this submission. While dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned appellate Court has found that the petitioner came in contact with the complainant earlier to 2002, enticed him to send him to Malaysia on work permit for a period of three years against payment of Rs.1,70,000/- and a buffalo worth Rs.15,000/- and thereafter dishonestly cheated the complainant by not providing him promised work permit inspite of receiving the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and buffalo worth Rs.15,000/-. Instead the complainant was sent to Malaysia on a temporary Visa for three months and on his return to India when the complainant demanded back his money and buffalo, the Crl.Rev.No.2069 of 2010 3 petitioner threatened him with dire consequences. Thus, the Courts below have found that all the ingredients of cheating and dishonestly inducing the complainant to pay Rs.1,70,000/- and a buffalo worth Rs.15,000/- stands proved. It has further been found by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, that the counsel for the petitioner could not point out any material discrepancies in the prosecution evidence which was also improbable and inconsistent and rather there was cogent, convincing, reliable, probable and sufficient evidence to convict and sentence the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 29.11.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge