KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) AMRIT Lal son of Bhagwan Dass was tried in case FIR No. 98 dated 13.12.1990 registered at Police Station Dialpura for offences under Sections 4 and 5 of Prize, Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In short, the allegations against the petitioner is that he started a lottery scheme whereby a person has to pay Rs. 100/- to the accused on a promise that in return a draw of lots will be taken up every month and various prizes consisting of Hero Honda Motorcycle in the first month, colour T.V. or Rs. 7000/- during 50th month, TVS moped in the 31st month etc. were to be given as prizes. Details of the prizes and the methodology of the scheme have been given in para 1 of the trial Court judgment and it will be apposite here to reproduce the same : "... ...accused Amrit Lal had started a lottery scheme wherein he was to be paid a sum of Rs. 100/- by every person and he promised in return to draw a lot every month which consisted of Hero Honda Motor Cycle or Rs. 16,000/- during the first month, one colour T.V. or Rs. 7,000/- during 50th month, T.V.S. moped or Rs. 4,000/- in the 31st month, Portable TV during 9th, 19th, 40th and 52nd month, Fridge during 26th month, cooler during 2nd and 15th month, Godrej Almirah during 57th month and 30th month, Hero Cycle during 4th, 14th, 24th, 43rd, 51st, 59th and 66th months, Sewing Machine 12th, 22nd, 25th, 32nd, 41st and 67th month, Tape Recorder 10th, 20th, 35th, 44th, 53rd and 69th month, Table Fan 7th, 16th, 29th, 37th, 46th, 54th and 61st month, Madhania 8th, 18th, 28th, 39th, 48th, 50th, 65th and 71st month, Press 3rd, 13th, 33rd, 42nd, 49th, 55th, 58th and 64th month, HMT Watches during 6th, 17th, 27th, 36th, 45th, 60th and 68th month, Clock during 11th, 21st, 38th, 47th, 56th, 62nd, 63rd and 70th month and Mixi 72nd month. Thus the scheme was to remain in force for 72 months. It has further been alleged that in this way the accused had collected Rs. 5,00,000/- by distributing 5000 tickets to innocent villagers. He took out a draw of Hero Honda for the first month. He also took out a draw of Coller for second month. Thereafter, he did not take out any draw. The villagers of Bhai Rupa, who had purchased tickets made complaint to the Removal of Public Grievances Officer. As said in paragraph 2 of the finding the said officer gave an opportunity to the parties to reach a compromise but the parties failed to reach a compromise. It appears that the accused did not make full payment to the persons who had purchased tickets. Ultimately the Removal of Public Grievances Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses gave finding to the Senior Superintendent of Police on whose direction the present case FIR Ex.PW13/A was registered."
(2.) THIS Court, for adjudication has only to rely upon two judgments, i.e. the judgment of the trial Court and that of the lower appellate Court. As trial Court record is not available, on February 20, 2008, this court requisitioned the trial Court record but the same was not received. On March 24, 2008 a request from District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda was received that the In- charge of Record Room (Judicial) Rampura has been requested to send the record but despite the request and orders of this Court, trial Court record is not available. On 23rd April, 2008, this Court passed a very detailed order and requested the registry to telephonically seek explanation as to why the record has not been received. Registry has reported that despite telephonic message conveyed, record has not been received.
(3.) AT this stage, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal has stated that he is also having a scanty record in his brief and his various attempts to contact the petitioner have failed as the age of the petitioner was recorded 57 years in the trial Court judgment and about 15 years are going to elapse, therefore, the petitioner will be more than 73 years old. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal has further stated that his various communications to the petitioner have elicited no response, therefore, even he cannot be sure whether the petitioner is alive or not. Mr. Aggarwal has further stated that various dates, he has been appearing and since record has not been received, the petitioner should be granted benefit of protracted trial and his sentence should be reduced to already undergone taking into account his age, i.e. more than 73 years and the fact that occurrence pertains to year 1991.;