Alok Singh, J. - (1.) CRM No. 29992 of 2010.
(2.) APPLICATION is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Delay of 119 days in filing the petition is condoned. Main Case Harnam Singh and Jassa Ram -Petitioners have knocked the door of this Court by way of present revision petition against the judgment and order dated 1.9.2009, passed by the Sub -Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, by virtue of which the accused Respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt. In a nutshell the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 20.7.2003 Tilak Raj got recorded a statement before the police that due to unemployment he was doing agriculture work. His neighbour, namely, Mohan Singh son of Attar Singh resident of Deh (hereinafter referred as accused) told him that he could send the complainant to a foreign country, since his own son Tarsem had gone there. Believing the accused, complainant alongwith Harnam Singh son of Jaimal Singh, Amrik Singh son of Puran Singh, Jassa Ram son of Gurnam Singh and Rajbinder Singh son of Kulbir Singh all residents of Village Deh, were ready to go to foreign country. Accused Mohan Singh obtained an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ -from the complainant. Similarly, accused took money from above said Harnam etc. For a few months complainant was kept in foreign country. Since, no employment was got arranged for him, complainant came back. Accused Mohan Singh alongwith his son Tarsem and daughter Harinder Kaur had cheated the complainant, apart from misappropriating his money. On the basis of the said statement, a case was registered against the accused. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation challan was presented against the accused -Respondent No. 2. The accused was charge sheeted under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and closed its evidence. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, learned defence counsel as well as after going through the record the learned trial Court acquitted the accused as noticed above.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and as such the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside and the accused are liable to be acquitted for an offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the year 2003, the accused had taken Rs. 3,00,000/ -for sending him to foreign country, but he has neither send him to foreign country nor returned the said amount and in this manner the accused is liable to be punished for the commission of offence under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.;