R.P. Nagrath, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the instant revision is to concurrent findings of Courts below holding charge against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC as proved. The trial Court awarded sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ -; in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, which was affirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran on 13.3.2013. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. Prayer is now confined to reduction in sentence or to grant benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in view of the antecedents of the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner induced complainant Santokh Singh to get appointment for his sons in the Army and for that purpose the petitioner demanded Rs. 45,000/ - from him. The petitioner is stated to be doing medical practice in the village. On one occasion, an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - was paid and Rs. 35,000/ - for the second time. The petitioner had demanded Rs. 30,000/ - for securing appointment to one son of the complainant and Rs. 45,000/ - for appointment of his two sons. The amount was paid in the presence of witnesses in the month of April, 2006 when the petitioner had come to the house of complainant. There was consistent evidence of complainant (PW 1) supported by Ranjit Singh PW 2, Member Panchayat of village and Harpal Singh PW 3, Ex -member Panchayat. It appeared in the statement of Ranjit Singh PW 2 that the petitioner was later on called in the Panchayat where he admitted having cheated the complainant of Rs. 45,000/ - and promised to return the amount. This is how delay in lodging the FIR in the year 2008 was explained. The FIR was registered after an enquiry into the complaint made to the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any contradiction much less material to attack the consistent statements of these witnesses. DW 1 Satnam Singh was produced as a defence witness whose statement is only to the effect that he had never heard of the petitioner making promise to any one to get job in the Army for any person. This negative statement would not carry weight against the consistent evidence led by the prosecution. There is no ulterior motive suggested to any of the witnesses including complainant why the petitioner would be falsely implicated on this kind of allegation. Any such discrepancy even has not been highlighted in the grounds of revision. All the aspects of the case have also been elaborately dealt with by the appellate Court while dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner.
(3.) IT has also been noticed by appellate Court that in April, 2006 the petitioner collected copies of the certificates of educational qualifications of sons of the complainant and received Rs. 45,000/ - in two installments. In these circumstances, petitioner's counsel has rightly not attacked concurrent findings of the Courts below. Therefore, conviction of petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC is upheld.;