Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Jarnail Singh And Another on 1 November, 2012
CRR-3103-2012 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 3103 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : November 01, 2012
State of Haryana
.... Petitioner
Versus
Jarnail Singh and another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
for the petitioner-State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Crl.M.No. 60071 of 2012 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 24 days in filing this revision petition is condoned.
Application stands disposed of accordingly. Main Petition By way of this revision petition, the State of Haryana has challenged the judgment dated 4.6.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment dated 21.9.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. has been upheld.
Jarnail Singh and Rajesh Kalyan, the respondents were CRR-3103-2012 2 ..
proceeded on criminal side by police at Police Station Ambala City for an offence punishable under section 409 IPC in a case arising out of FIR No. 175 dated 16.5.2002. After due trial, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. acquitted the two vide judgment dated 21.9.2010. The appeal preferred by State of Haryana before learned Additional Sessions Judge also failed and the acquittal of the respondents has been upheld.
It has been a case got registered by Deputy Commissioner, Ambala by way of a complaint dated 2.5.2002 whereby he claimed that the two respondents had been responsible for loss of deed of settlement of Baseshar Nath Trust (Registered).
Both the courts below have concurrently found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the two respondents. Learned State counsel for the petitioner could not make any submission assailing the findings of the courts below. He had nothing to say that the judgments of the courts below are in any way erroneous, not based on evidence or have been based on perverse findings.
In view of the above, finding no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded in the impugned judgments, I find no merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same in limine.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 01, 2012 som