Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh on 20 July, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Revision No.2037 of 2012 (O&M) 1
...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.2037 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.07.2012.
Ramesh Kumar ..Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/31.10.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh as well as judgment dated 09.07.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which, the conviction/sentence has been upheld.
FIR No.10 dated 24.01.1997 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 170/120-B of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh against two accused, namely, Ramesh Kumar and Paramjit Singh Jandu, who were tried and held guilty and were convicted and sentenced by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.
Against the said judgment of conviction and order of Criminal Revision No.2037 of 2012 (O&M) 2 ...
sentence, an appeal was filed, which was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were upheld by the Appellate Court.
The present revision petition has been filed by accused- Ramesh Kumar against the judgments of both the Courts below on the ground that the allegations are mainly against co-accused Paramjit Singh Jandu and no any specific allegation was alleged against the present petitioner and money was also accepted by him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not cheated the complainants in any manner or dishonestly induced to deliver amount for employing as Clerks. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not even identified by the witnesses and no offence is made out under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC. Learned counsel also submits that it was not proved by any document that the amount was accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner was wrongly declined even the benefit of probation inspite of the fact that he has suffered the agony of trial for such a long period.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the judgments of both the Courts below and other documents available on file.
After perusal of the judgments of Courts below, it appears that the allegations against the petitioner and co-accused Paramjit Singh Jandu were that they were running a bogus office in SCO 99, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh. Paramjit Singh Jandu was projecting Criminal Revision No.2037 of 2012 (O&M) 3 ...
himself to be Director (Projects) Edu/Sports and Cultural Development Punjab, Chandigarh, Ministry of Human Resources (Govt. of India) and in conspiracy with the present petitioner, he cheated Preetinder Singh, Harmanjit Kaur and Bahadur Singh by dishonestly inducing them to deliver amount for employing them as Clerks. It has come in the statements of PWs that the amount was paid for employment and the complainants were introduced by the present petitioner. They were also medically examined and appointment letters were also issued. Appointment letters and medical examinations have been proved by documentary as well as oral evidence. The role of the present petitioner is not only of introducing the complainants but also that he has been very active at every step along with accused Paramjit Singh Jandu. The amount, which was withdrawn from the Bank, has also been proved.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to how the judgment of conviction is contrary to record or that it is a case of non-appreciation of evidence.
Moreover, the petitioner has committed an offence by cheating the innocent and unemployed persons by offering employment in a fraudulent manner. Both the judgments have been passed on the basis of appreciation of evidence which includes oral as well as documentary evidence. There is nothing in the judgments of both the Courts below, which requires any interference in a revision petition. Moreover, the scope of revision petition is also very limited and the powers of revision petition is to be exercised only Criminal Revision No.2037 of 2012 (O&M) 4 ...
when it comes to the notice of the Court that there is mis- appreciation of the evidence or the evidence has not been discussed but nothing has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Keeping in view the facts as mentioned above, there is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
20.07.2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE