IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.900 of 2008. Dated of Decision: September 4, 2008. Sushma Kanwar. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ………. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent : None Surinder Singh, J (oral): Heard and gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge framed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, after the complete trial. Precisely, the case of the prosecution has been that the respondent herein was running a “Ishan Public School”, at Rahighat and represented to the people that she would be preparing the children for `Indian Certificate of Secondary Education’ (I.C.S.E.) examination. Pursuant to this representation, the complainant admitted his daughter and pursued her studies diligently. She passed her examinations Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 upto 9th standard. The respondent has been assuring the children that they were being prepared for ICSE examination scheduled to be held in March, 1999, but in the end of October, 1998 the students, who were in 10th class including the daughter of the complainant, were told that the examination was to be conducted by the H.P. Board of School Education, instead of ICSE, thus, they were asked to pay Rs.500/- as examination fee. On account of this, the students were compelled to prepare to the H.P. Board of School Education examination instead of ICSE which caused a great inconvenience and mental agony to them. The hope of the parents of was also shattered. The respondent vide letter dated 28.10.1998 informed the complainant that her School had been affiliated to the ICSE and the parents were requested to pay affiliation fee of Rs.200/-. On the complaint, the case was registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The challan was presented in the court. At the end of the trial, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- by the trial court. In appeal, the judgment of conviction and sentence was set- aside on the ground that there was lacking a dishonest intention on the part of the respondent. As a matter of fact, from time to time, the respondent had been representing to the ICSE authorities to grant the 3 affiliation to her school and even a team also visited her premises to inspect the school whether it conformed to the requisite standard. The team found certain discrepancies but recommended for granting temporary affiliation. Copy of the report Ex.DW1/A was placed on the record during the trial of the case, whereby the following recommendations were made:- (a) That the school may be given temporary affiliation till March, 2000. (b) That School be advised to revise salary over a period. (c) Affiliation beyond March, 2000 could be subject to allotment of the land to the school and suitable revision of salary. (d) If School constructs building by March, 2002, it may b e given permanent affiliation. The respondent wrote a letter Ex.DW1/E to the Chief Executive and Secretary of the I.C.S.E. on 10.10.1998 explaining about the shortcomings/ deficiencies pointed out by the inspecting team and assured to improve and remove the same. In reply to it, the Project Officer called upon the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- by a bank draft drawn in favour of the council of I.C.S.E., New Delhi, for a provisional affiliation, but even thereafter no affiliation was granted and the respondent pursued her case before the said authorities. Again inspection team was sent, who visited on 5.4.1999 and submitted a report Ex.DW1/E. The Inspecting 4 team again recommended for the provisional affiliation on the condition that the situation/ conditions will be reviewed after a period of two years. The respondent allegedly wrote a letter Ex.PW1/A to the parents informing them regarding the affiliation of her School to I.C.S.E., New Delhi, when even the provisional affiliation was not granted. A communication Ex.PW1/B was also addressed to the complainant informing him about the latest position. Thus, against the aforesaid background and as a sequel of facts, in my considered opinion, there was a lack of dishonest concealment, inducement and fraudulent intention on the part of the respondent, which is sine quo non for constituting the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court are reasonable and I do not find any perversity therein. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the application is dismissed. September 04, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.