Criminal Revision No.2218 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2218 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 29, 2009 Pushplata ...........Petitioner Versus Saroj Bala etc. ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.B.R.Gupta,,Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1 Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana ** Sabina, J. Respondent No.1-Saroj Bala was tried for an offence under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short). Vide judgment dated 10.7.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charge framed against her. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-complainant preferred a revision and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Ambala vide judgment dated 16.8.2002 being not maintainable. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “Complainant is the Manager of Self Employed Women's Association, Haryana which aids the poor, doom trodden children, Criminal Revision No.2218 of 2002 2 women and receive its aid from several welfare institutions by way of donation, having its office in rented premises at 2-B, Shastri Colony, Ambala Cantt. A proposal was made by the members of association that a permanent office should be made after purchasing a land and every executive member was asked to locate the space within the financial reach of the association. It is alleged that accused was working with Smt.Pushp lata, the General Secretary of the Association, in her house and she conveyed the said proposal to the accused that SEWA is in need of a piece of land for establishing a permanent office. On this, accused offered her land for the association and same was conveyed to the Association by the Gen. Secretary namely Smt. Pushp Lata and Pushp Lata enquired about the accused competency regarding her ownership over the land and came to know that she was fully competent to create a perptual lease in favour of SEWA, Haryana. It is alleged that after considering the proposal of the accused, General Secretary referred the matter to the executive body of SEWA, Haryana. Thereafter, accused executed a lease deed with the condition that she would charge Rs.50,000/- in lump sum besides Rs.300/- as monthly rent of the said piece of land. Accused further told the complainant that her late husband was in possession of the land for so many years, hence she do not have ready title papers, however, she assured that she would furnish the same as soon as possible. Thereafter, complainant appraoched the accused in the first week of October, 90 and requested that she would receive the amount of Criminal Revision No.2218 of 2002 3 Rs.50,000/- later on i.e. in the middle of December,1990 but the formalities should be completed now. Complainant as well as Smt. Pushp Lata did not again doubt on malafide intention of the accused and in good faith accepted the contention of the accused and accused executed a perpetual lease deed in favour of Haryana qua the said piece of land and got it registered from the Office of Sub Registrar on 11.10.1990, but accused did not surrender the possession and SEWA Haryana did not pay anything to the accused as consideration of the perpetual lease at the time of execution of lease deed. Thereafter, accused requested the complainant in the first week of December, 1990 for the payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- as she was in need of the money, which was paid by the complainant on 17.12.1990 vide cheque No.9299882 of Canara Bank, Ambala Cantt. dated 18.12.1990 and accused agreed to deliver the possession of the said land within 2/3 days. It is alleged that after three days, when complainant visited the spot for taking the possession of the land and called the accused to demarcate the plot leased out by her to SEWA, Haryana. In the meanwhile, a lady named Smt.Debo wife of Shri Banta Ram appeared and claimed her ownership over the plot leased out to SEWA, Haryana by the accused and also told that two civil suits are pending qua the land in question one filed by the accused and another filed by Smt.Debo, in which, injuntion order has already been passed. It is alleged that accused did not disclose about the litigation either to Smt. Pushp Lata or to complainant at the time of receiving the amount of Rs.50,000/- Criminal Revision No.2218 of 2002 4 and has deliberately concealed the fact regarding her ownership over the property in question and also refused to refund the said amount. Thereafter, this complaint was sent to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of, a case under Sections 406/420 IPC was registered. Investigations were conducted by the police. Accused was arrested. Necessary documents in question were taken into police possession vide recovery memo. After completion of usual investigation, challan was put up in the Court for trial against the accused." After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, no ground for interference is made out. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record observed that admittedly, the lease deeds were executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 for amount of Rs.50,000/-. Petitioner was to pay Rs.300/- per month as rent with regard to the plot leased out to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 was in possession of the property in dispute in view of the Will, Exhibit D1. Similarly, reliance was also placed on the testimonies of DW1 and DW2 who had categorically stated that initially suit land was owned by husband of respondent No.1 and after his death, respondent No. 1 came in possession of the property in question. Since the lease deed had been executed between the parties, no offence under Section 406 IPC was held to have been made out. With regard to offence under Section 420 IPC, the learned trial Court observed that the prosecution has failed to prove that there had been any dishonest inducement on the part of respondent No.1 at the time of execution of lease deed. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- against respondent Criminal Revision No.2218 of 2002 5 No.1 and respondent No.1 has filed a suit for recovery of rent against the petitioner. Before the execution of the lease deed by respondent No.1, she was found to be in possession of the land in question. The petitioner should have made necessary inquiry regarding the ownership of the land in question. The reasons given by the trial Court while acquitting respondent No.1 are sound reasons and call for no interference. 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. The present case does not warrant a retrial. 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, revision petition is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge April 29,2009 arya