Gurdev Singh, J. - (1.) THE complainant, Kaki (PW -1), gave written application to the SSP, Sangrur, levelling allegations against the Petitioner/accused Pavittar Singh. She narrated therein that the accused was a travel agent and dishonestly allured her to pay Rs.1.80 lakhs for sending her son Boota Khan abroad, after arranging for a forged ticket. He sent her son, alongwith other boys, to Moscow instead of sending him to Italy. When she accompanied by her daughter Rano, who is married in the village of the accused, went to him to get back that amount, he asked them to come the next day. When they went to him the next day, he forcibly obtained her thumb impression on a pronote. She tried to approach the police but got no help. An inquiry was conducted by DSP, Mehal Kalan. During the inquiry, it was found that the accused received a sum of Rs.3.40 lakhs from the complainant and Suleman after extending false promise of sending their sons abroad, but failed to do so and did not return their money. After the opinion of the District Attorney (Legal) was obtained, FIR was registered against the accused. During the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the copies of the relevant documents were taken into possession. The accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, challan was put in against him before the JMIC, Barnala, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that he committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Kaki, complainant (PW -1), Suleman (PW -2), Rahim Din (PW -3), Mamdin (PW -4), Rano (PW -5), Tara Singh, Deed Writer (PW -6), Rakesh Kumar, Deed Writer (PW -7), Karam Chand SI (PW -8) and Pritpal Singh, DSP (PW -9). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined by the trial court and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure All the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded that he never took any such amount from the complainant. Rather, she had borrowed the amount from him regarding which he filed the suit which was decreed against her on 9.12.1996. He was called upon to enter on his defence but he did not produce any evidence in his defence. After going through the evidence, so produced and hearing Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused, the JMIC convicted the accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/ -and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal, in which he filed an application under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure for producing additional evidence. The same was allowed and thereafter he tendered in his defence certified copies of the judgment dated 27.7.2004 Ex. DX/1, decree sheet dated 27.7.2004 Ex. DX/2, judgment dated 27.7.2004 Ex. DX/3 and decree sheet dated 27.7.2004 Ex. DX/4. The appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Barnala, upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused. Now he has preferred the present revision against that conviction and sentence.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/accused that the evidence produced on the record by the prosecution was not of such a standard so as to record conviction of the accused. That evidence is inherently infirm and is full of embellishment and does not inspire any confidence. Kaki -complainant (PW -1) and Suleman (PW -3), who are alleged to have given the money to the accused for sending their sons abroad, have not been able to disclose the date, month or the year in which those amounts were given and the statements made by them about the time are full of contradictions. In fact, false application was given by the complainant against the accused in order to wriggle out of her liability to pay the decreetal amount in respect of the decree, which was passed against her in the suit instituted by the accused and about which she had the full knowledge. There is enmity between the parties as father of the accused had filed the suit against Yusaf, brother of the complainant, on the basis of the pronote. There is no question of the complainant or Suleman giving any such amount to the accused for sending their sons abroad as those sons were not holding any passports and in the absence of the same there was no possibility of their sons being sent abroad. He also tried to contend that for recovery of the said amount, civil suits were filed by the complainant and Suleman, which were dismissed by the civil court and that finding of the civil court is binding upon the criminal court and that itself is a sufficient ground for acquitting the accused.
(3.) ON the other hand, it was submitted by the learned State counsel that the suits so filed by the complainant and Suleman were dismissed as barred by limitation and no such finding was recorded by the civil court that such amounts were not received by the accused from the complainant and Suleman. He also tried to assert that the date of the payment of amounts in question stands established from the sale deed proved on record by Rakesh Kumar, Deed Writer (PW -7). He has not been able to meet the other arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused.;