CIVIL APPEAL 874 of 2005 on 1 June 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2005

Date of decision: February 07, 2011

Jasbir Singh and another

.. Petitioners

State of Punjab

Vs.

.. Respondent

Coram:Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

Present:Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent.

A.N. Jindal, J

Initially, four accused were convicted by the trial court vide itsjudgment dated 1.6.2002 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 420 IPC.However, in appeal, the accused Surjit Kaur was acquitted of the chargesframed against her, whereas, accused Iqbal Singh died during the pendencyof the appeal and the order of conviction and sentence passed against theaccused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') was upheld.

The allegations in brief are that on 2.2.1999, Swaran Ram and Jagjiwan Ram submitted a written complaint alleging therein that they hadgiven Rs.90,000/- each to the accused on the pretext that they would besent abroad. However, neither they had been sent abroad nor money hasbeen returned to them. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, enquiry wasconducted and opinion Ex.DA was obtained, on the basis of which formalFIR was registered. On completion of the investigation, challan against theaccused was presented in the court.

They were charged under Sections 420 IPC, to which theypleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examinedSwaran Ram (PW1), Jagjiwan Ram (PW2), Gurdip Singh (PW3), CharanjitSingh (PW4), Sukhdev Singh (PW5), Nirmal Chand (PW6), Navin Sood(PW7), ASI Mohan Lal (PW8), Gurdev Kaur (PW9), Onkar Singh (PW10),HC Tarsem Singh (PW11), SI Gian Chand (PW12) and Mohan Lal (PW13).

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused deniedall the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleadedtheir false implication in the case.

The trial resulted into conviction. However, in appeal, theaccused Surjit Kaur was acquitted of the charges while extending benefit ofdoubt, whereas, conviction and sentence passed against Jasbir Singh andParamjit Singh was ordered to be maintained. It is pertinent to mention herethat the accused Iqbal Singh died during the pendency of the appeal.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

The first contention raised by the petitioners is that in view ofSection 10 and 24 of Immigration Act, 1983, no prosecution could belaunched against the petitioners. But, the contention lacks merit. Section10 of the Act provides only that, who want to carry on the business ofrecruitment of Indian labour in the foreign country, have to get a validcertificate for the purpose from the Registering Authority. The section ismeant to regulate the business of sending recruits and labour abroad in abulk, but that has nothing to do with the offence of cheating committed bythem in their own country. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is ageneral provision for holding the person guilty who cheat a person andinduce him to part with some money or valuable security on the falsepromise to do which he could not legally do and to omit to do which he wasobliged to do. Similarly, Section 24 of the Act has also no application anddo not stand as a shelter for the accused against the offence committed bythem.

The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that there is a lot of delay in lodging the FIR. No doubt, themoney was received by the accused in the month of April, 1998 onwardsand the application was given on 2.2.1999 and the FIR was registered on15.8.1999, yet, the delay in such cases does not matter much. The peoplewho having been exploited in this manner always prefer to make anendeavour to receive money back then to register a case against the personsat fault. It appears that the complainants in this case had been wonderinghere and there to persuade the accused to pay back the money, butultimately having failed to get their money back, they felt cheated that neither they were sent abroad nor the money was returned, therefore, theygot the case registered.

As regards the next contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioners that the complainants Swaran Ram and Jagjivan Ram have failedto establish if the amount of Rs.90,000/- each was paid by them to theaccused, in this regard it may be observed that both the courts below haveduly appreciated and discussed the evidence led by the prosecution thatSwaran Ram (PW1) and Jagjiwan Ram (PW2) had delivered a sum ofRs.90,000/- each to Jasbir Singh and Paramjit Singh and the other accused.Swaran Ram (PW1) had stated that Jasbir Singh had induced him to partwith the money stating that he was going to Italy through travel agentGulzar Singh and if he was interested then he could also be sent. JasbirSingh had taken the full responsibility regarding the offer. He has furtherstated that the total money to be paid by him was Rs.2,25,000/-, out ofwhich he had to pay Rs.90,000/- in advance. Thus, on allurement by JasbirSingh he had given his passport, 12 photographs and Rs.20,000/- to him on18.4.1998, then Rs.3000/- on 30.4.1998 and thereafter in June, 1998 he paidRs.27,000/- to Jasbir Singh in the presence of his father Iqbal Singh(accused since expired). Thereafter, he had given Rs.30,000/- in the monthof May, 1998 to Paramjit Singh accused who is the maternal nephew ofJasbir Singh in the presence of Surjit Kaur wife of Iqbal Singh. On10.6.1998, another sum of Rs.10,000/- was delivered to Paramjit Singh.Similarly, Jagjiwan Ram (PW2) had disclosed that in the year 1997, JasbirSingh had taken his passport for sending him to Italy on the assurance thathe will get a job for him in Italy. In July, 1998, as allured by him he hadpaid Rs.20,000/- to Paramjit Singh on his asking. Then, again he had paidRs.20,000/- to Jasbir Singh in the year 1998. In August, 1998 he had againgiven Rs.50,000/- to Paramjit Singh and Jasbir Singh at Jalandhar.Testimonies of these two witnesses stand corroborated by Gurdeep Singh(PW3), Charanjit Singh (PW4) and Sukhdev Singh brother-in-law (wife'sbrother Swaran Ram) (PW5), Navin Sood Accounts Clerk (PW6). Thedocuments Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/F placed on the record prove that themoney was withdrawn on the relevant dates by the witness for helpingJagjiwan Ram to send him abroad. If the entire evidence is gone into, then Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2005

***

it stands duly established that money was given to Jasbir Singh and ParamjitSingh on their demand by Jagjiwan Ram and Swaran Ram under theallurement that they would be sent abroad. Mere non placing of theapplication given by them to panchayat hardly effects the prosecution casein the presence of the positive evidence on the record. Both the courts belowhave returned the concurrent findings with regard to the guilt of theaccused. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been pointedout warranting interference by this Court.

Consequently finding no merit in the petition the same isdismissed.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Hoshiarpur for compliance.

February 07, 2010deepak

(A.N. Jindal)Judge