Criminal Misc. No.507-MA of 2007 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.507-MA of 2007
Date of decision : 26.8.2008
State of Haryana .....Petitioner
Versus
Ishwar Chand and others ...Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. S.S.Mor,Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The respondents/accused were prosecuted, for an offence
under Sections 406,420,506 read with Section 34 IPC, on the following
charge:-
The respondents-accused induced first informant to start a
business. They held an assurance that they would be able to sort out his
financial problems and he would be able to earn money in the form of
interest. The first informant was told to obtain monthly contribution of
Rs.12000/- from ten members. The first informant did the assigned job
and constituted a committee. The first meeting of the committee was held
on 27.10.1998 and total amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was collected.
Respondents/accused Ashu and Surender claimed the first ‘auction of the
committee’ by averring that they were in need of money. Of course, they
conceded deduction of Rs.25,000/-, as interest, for lodging a claim on
priority. The amount afore-mentioned of Rs.25,000/- was divided equally
Criminal Misc. No.507-MA of 2007 -2-
****
amongst the ten members. The further meeting of the committee was
held on 27.11.1997 and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was collected.
Respondent/Accused Jyoti and Ishwar claimed the committee amount on
the above indicated pattern and a sum of Rs.22,000/- was deducted and
distributed equally amongst the committee members. However,
respondents-accused Ishwar Chand, Jyoti Parsad, Surender Kumar and
Ashish Kumar @ Ashu did not attend the committee meeting on
22.12.1997. Even when they were contacted to either refund the amount
already obtained by them or to continue to pay contribution to the
committee, they declined to oblige.
Learned Trial Magistrate recorded the following findings to
invalidate the prosecution presentation:-
“17. The oral evidence led on file by the prosecution to
prove the alleged transactions is also not trustworthy. PW1
Ishwar, PW2 Ramesh, PW3 Tarsem and PW4 Deshraj have
admitted that they are related to complainant Sanjay in one
way or the other. PW1 Ishwar is the Dewar of real Bua of
complainant Sanjay. PW2 Ramesh is uncle (Mama) of the
complainant. The fact regarding relationship has also been
admitted by the witnesses. It has also come in evidence that
the shop of Panna Lal (real uncle of father of complainant)
was on rent with accused Ashu. No independent witness has
been examined by the prosecution to prove the commission of
the alleged offence by the accused.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
19. The prosecution has also not been able to prove the
commission of any offence under Section 506 of the Indian
Criminal Misc. No.507-MA of 2007 -3-****
Penal Code by any of the accused persons. The complainant
in his complaint Ex. PW5/A has nowhere stated that Deshraj
son of Shri Ram was also present at the time when the
accused allegedly criminally intimidated him. PW4 Deshraj
has also stated that he did not mention this fact that the
accused criminally intimidated Sanjay at the time when his
statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. He could
only be termed as a chance witness. He also cannot be said
to be an independent witness being related to the
complainant. So, the possibility of making him a stock witness
lateron cannot be ruled. His testimony is also not worthy of
credence. It has come in evidence that there are number of
shops adjoining the shop where the accused persons were
allegedly sitting. The presence of PW4 Deshraj at the spot is
also doubtful, more so when his testimony is not corroborated
by any independent witness.”
I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial
Judge are relatable to the material obtained on the file and there is nothing
perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge.
Dismissed.
August 26, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No