ORDER
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 15-5-1993, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Cachar, Silchar, in Criminal Appeal No. 5(3) of 1992, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order, dt. 22-7-92, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Silchar. In C.R. Case No. 1695/89, convicting the petitioner under Section 420, IPC sentencing him to suffer R.I. for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
2. The case against the accused-petitioner, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows : the complainant, Abdul Salam Laskar, could not come out with flying colours in HSLC examination held in 1979. He tried to obtain some employment, but came to realise that unless he passed HSLC examination, he had no chance of getting any employment. The complainant approached the accused-petitioner, namely, Basir Uddin Laskar, who was Secretary of Hatikhal High School and a Member of CCJC Higher Secondary School, seeking advice as to how he could appear in the HSLC examination as a private candidate. The accused-petitioner assured the complainant that if he paid Rs. 4000/- to the accused, he could make arrangements for appearance of the complainant, in the HSLC examination from Hatikhal H.E. School. The complainant accordingly, on 5-10-1988, paid Rs. 4000/-to the accused-petitioner in presence of witnesses. The accused-petitioner did not make any arrangement for enabling the complainant to appear in the examination. As the complainant did not receive his admit card for the proposed examination and failed to appear in the said HSLC examination held on 19-3-89 he asked the accused-petitioner to repay his said amount of Rs. 4000/-, but the accused-petitioner did not return the same. The accused-petitioner, according to the complainant, fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant to part with Rs. 4000/- by creating in him a belief that he would be able to sit in the examination aforementioned on payment of Rs. 4000/-and caused thereby loss to the complainant of Rs. 4000/- and made for himself wrongful gain of Rs. 4000/-.
3. During trial, when a charge framed under Section 420, IPC was explained to the accused-petitioner, he pleaded not guilty thereto.
4. In all, complainant examined three witnesses to prove the charge. The accused petitioner was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. In his examination aforementioned the petitioner denied that he had committed the alleged offence, his case being that of total denial. No evidence was. however, adduced by the defence,
5. At the conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court found the accused-petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and convicted accordingly and passed against him the sentence as stated hereinabove, The accused-petitioner, then, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5(3) of 1992, which was also dismissed as hereinabove mentioned.
6. The moot point, which has been raised in the present revision, is this, whether the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court is justified on the basis of the evidence on record and law relevant thereto?
7. I have carefully perused the relevant record including the impugned judgment and order. 1 have heard Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the complainant opposite party, i have however, heard the learned Public Prosecutor,
8. While dealing with this revision, it needs to be borne in mind that a revisional Court shall not, ordinarily, reappreciate the evidence unless the findings are without; evidence, perverse or wholly against the weight of the evidence on record causing mis-carriage of justice. Even while re-appreciating the evidence the revisional Court shall not substitute its own views in place of the views of the trial Court if It is possible to have two equally reasonable views from the evidence on record or, in other words, if the evidence is capable of being interpreted in two different ways.
9. Keeping the above salutory principle in mind, let me, now. come to, and deal with, the impugned judgment vis-a-vis the evidence on record.
9-A. Let me, for the sake of brevity, quote the relevant portions of the impugned Judgment. Sustaining the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, learned Sessions Judge has, I find, observed as follows :-
6. That on perusal of the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate I find that he discussed in details and opined that accused person is related with complainant and witnesses and accused person received Rs. 4000/- from complainant on 5-10-88 but accused person did not perform his assured part and denied to have received any money. It is to be remembered that it is not a case that accused admitted to have received the amount and failed to do his part due to some other contingencies. In such circumstances the matter could have been otherwise. Here in this matter accused person denied to have received any money from the complainant (PW, 1) in presence of witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3. Hence, it Is to be seen If there is any illegality in the impugned judgment.
7. It is clear from evidence that accused Basir Uddin Is a pharmacist as per his statement under Section 131, Cri. P.C. P.W. 1 specifically stated that accused deals in Homeopathy and also was a Secretary of Hatikhal High School and Member of Palanghat Higher Secondary School. It is clear that P.W. 3 is related to complainant (PW-1) and accused Basir Uddin. That All Hussain (PW. 2) specifically stated that the accused persons the son of the sister of his father. That the facts regarding relationship of the parties are not denied. Hence the question comes as to why such a false case is to be brought against accused persons who is found to be a very responsible person doing his practice as Homeopath and having port folios on the committee of the school, whereas the complainant is a cultivator after his failure to get any Job and the witnesses are relations of both the parties. That complainant in his cross-examination clarified that by Matriculation examination he meant H.S.L.C. examination, It is true that for many persons, even now-a-days. H.S.L.C. mean Matriculation of earlier days. Here in this case it is found that accused simply denied that fact that he was not the Secondary school and the complainant could not produce any document in this regard. That simply by such denial of his Secretaryship or membership cannot cut the root of the prosecution case. It is an evidence that complainant had been to accused person for advice as to how lie could appear in the examination again to qualify himself for a Govt. job and the fact that he appeared once for H.S.L.C. examination is not denied by the accused person, who is related to him. The defence also made no attempt to show that he was not in the committee of the said schools. It is quite natural that a relation of an Important person may go to him for advice. Moreover, complainant was very much known to accused person. It is admitted by defence that complainant used to go to accused person at Hatikhal Bazar for purchasing medicine. It is In evidence that complainant collected his money to be paid to accused by mortgaging his land to one Safiqul Bari as stated by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 in cross-examination.
8. That the transaction was in presence of Alauddin (PW-3), Hussain (PW-2) arid another Maklisur Rahman. It is true that the payment of Rs. 4000/- was made by complainant without any document. That such transactions are not generally made on document and here, in this matter accused person is related to one having some importance in the society. That only question is if there witnesses are to be believed or not. I do not find any reason! that so many relations of both the parties depose falsely against accused person have any hypothesis of his innocence. In such Circumstances the learned Magistrate rightly appreciated the evidence discussion them in thread.
10. On a dispassionate reading of the above observations in the judgment, in the light of the evidence on record, I see no reason at all to disagree with the findings arrived at, and/or conclusions reached by, the learned Courts below.
11. Coming to the question as to whether on the basis of the evidence on record, it could have been held that the accused-petitioner had fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant to part with the amount of Rs. 4000/- and caused thereby loss to complainant and made for himself wrongful gain, it Is worth noticing that the accused-petitioner, at no stage, admitted that he had received Rs. 4000/- bona fide and/or that he made any efforts with the object of enabling the complainant to sit in the examination. Far from this, the accused claimed that he had not received any money from the complainant or had given no assurance as deposed to by the complainant, The conduct of the petitioner in refusing to admit that he had received Rs. 4000/- from the complainant coupled with the fact that not even a semblance of bona fide is reflected from the evidence on record on the part of the accused-petitioner in obtaining the money from the complainant, leads to the lone and only conclusion, which the learned appellate Court rightly reached, is that the accused dishonestly induced the complainant to part with the money as mentioned hereinabove. Viewed from this angle, the accused can be safely held to have committed the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC and the learned Courts below acted in accordance with law in convicting him.
12. I, therefore, find no reason to disturb the finding of guilt reached against the accused-petitioner and/or the conviction awarded by the learned trial Court and upheld by learned appellate Court,
13. Coming to the question of sentence passed against the accused-petitioner. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, has pointed out that the accused has been facing their accusations made in this case since 1989 and he has suffered enough and his sentence may be reduced. Having considered the matter in its entirety, looking at the age of the accused-petitioner and also the length of period, during which he has remained involved in this case, I think that the sentence of imprisonment for 1 (one) month with a fine of Rs. 500/- will be adequate punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this revision partly succeeds, while maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner, his punishment is reduced to 1(one) month of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 (fifteen) days.
15. With the modifications in the sentence as mentioned hereinabove. this revision shall stand disposed of.
16. Send back the case record with a copy of this judgment of order.