Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh And Another vs U.T. Chandigarh on 15 November, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Revision No. 3526 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 3526 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.11.2013.
Prem Singh and another .......Petitioners
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Kanisth Ganeriwala, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners along with the co-accused had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'' for short) in FIR No. 106 dated 26.6.2013, registered at Police Station North, Chandigarh. The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 25.11.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of petitioner Prem Singh under Section 419, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC and petitioner Swaran Singh under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. Appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgment/order of their conviction and sentence were dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.10.2013. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners had have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Som Nath impersonated as Major Som Nath and claimed himself to be owner Singh Gurpreet 2013.11.18 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 3526 of 2013 (O&M) -2- of house No. 300, Sector-10, Chandigarh. Prem Kumar identified Som Nath as Major Som Nath, resident of New Delhi and owner of the house in question. Complainant was introduced to the seller by petitioner Prem Singh. Complainant entered into an agreement to sell with Som Nath. Som Nath received ` 10,00,000/- by way of earnest money from the complainant and the remaining ` 10,00,000/- were given by way of cheque. However, the said cheque was not presented for encashment. Complainant got suspicious and sent his person to Delhi to verify the antecedents of Som Nath. On an inquiry, it transpired that Som Nath was an impostor and was not the owner of the house in question.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused.
The Appellate Court, while upholding the conviction of the petitioners as ordered by the Trial Court, has held that the complainant had deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Complainant had also deposed that Prem Singh had demanded ` 50,000/- from him as advance money to satisfy the owner qua his seriousness with regard to purchase of the house in question. In this regard, receipt was also issued by Prem Singh. Total sale price of the house was settled at ` 80,00,000/-. ` 20,00,000/- were demanded in advance by the owner. ` 10,00,000/- were paid in cash whereas qua the remaining amount of ` 10,00,000/-, a cheque was issued by the complainant in favour of Major Som Nath. The agreement to sell in question was attested by Raghbir Singh and petitioner Swaran Singh.
Thus, it is evident that petitioners and their co-accused Som Nath had taken ` 10,50,000/- from the complainant by Singh Gurpreet 2013.11.18 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 3526 of 2013 (O&M) -3- making him (complainant) believe that Som Nath was the owner of the house in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below. In these circumstances, both the Courts below rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioners as the prosecution had been successful in proving its case.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 15, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.11.18 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh