IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CRR. No. 2599 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 19, 2009 Amrik Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Davinder Singh & others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.C.Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Sabina, J. This is a petition against the judgment dated 11.7.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, vide which respondents No. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short). Prosecution story, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “The present case has been registered against the accused persons upon the letter of Director General of Police, Punjab at Chandigarh bearing No. 1545/IGP dated 16.11.2004. The brief facts of the case are that the accused persons have obtained Rs. Four lacks from Amrik Singh son of Mangal Singh, resident of Pharuwal, PS Mamdot, District Ferozepur for providing service as Inspector to his son Balwinder Singh in Food Supplies Department. But neither the said boy was got employed nor the money was returned. In this connection, a compromise was effected on 6.12.2002 in the presence of the respectables and as per agreement the accused have agreed to pay Rs. Two lacks each, CRR. No. 2599 of 2008 -2- but they did not return the money. The original documents are with the lady constable and she has not returned the documents. From the report, it is found that earlier case FIR No. 81/01 was got registered under Sections 420/324/34 of IPC against Lady Constable Jaswinder Kaur No. 4424 Tarn Taran by Davinder Singh in police Station `B' Division, Amritsar. In that case, the enquiry was only with regard to the case under Sections 324/34 of IPC and the case was sent untraced on 25.8.2004, but no investigation was conducted qua the acceptance of Rs. Four lacs and it has also been found that a sum of Rs. Four lacs was accepted by the accused and they had compromised to that effect and they had agreed to return Rs. Two lacs each to Amrik Singh, but they have not fulfilled their promises.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court has erred in acquitting respondents No. 1 and 2. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that the complainant had failed to indentify the accused. He appeared in the witness box. He also deposed that Sukhwinder Kaur, his niece had not talked to the accused for getting service to his son in Food and Supplies Department and he did not go to village Wadala Kalan of Jaswinder Kaur nor he had given Rupees. Four lac for getting the service of his son. Similarly, Balwinder Singh (PW2) and Lakhbir Singh (PW4), Santokh Singh (PW5) and Sukhwinder Kaur (PW6) also did not support the prosecution case. In these circumstances, the State counsel closed the prosecution version. Since the material witnesses had not supported the prosecution case, the learned trial Judge was left with no option but to acquit the CRR. No. 2599 of 2008 -3- accused of the charge framed against him. 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. It is not a fit case which would warrant retrial as the witnesses had not supported the prosecution case. 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, this petition is being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 19, 2009 arya