The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence and documents in determining the nature of a dispute, especially in cases involving the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment of dated 22.2.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which respondent No. 2 - Nagahia Singh has been acquitted by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana, in case FIR No. 199 dated 22.08.2007 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Shimla Puri, Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the application of complainant Amarjit Singh (petitioner herein), above noted FIR was registered. The complainant in his complaint stated that on 10.11.2006, respondent No.2- Nagahia Singh entered into a written agreement for the sale of a plot and earnest money of Rs.1.00 lac was given to him and the sale deed was to be executed on 30.11.2006. Since the sale deed was not executed on 30.11.2006, the time was extended to 28.2.2007, but on the said date, respondent No.2 did not come present to execute the sale deed and the petitioner came to know that respondent No.2 had also entered into an agreement for the sale of the same plot with one Maha Singh on 7.11.2006 and sale deed in favour of Maha Singh was to be executed on 17.11.2006, but finally respondent No.2 executed sale deed in favour of Smt. Ranjit Kaur on 8.12.2006 and, thus, respondent No.2 had cheated and defrauded the appellant.

3. The trial Court framed charge against respondent No.2 under Section 420 IPC to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and ultimately after taking into consideration the evidence on record, respondent No.2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six month under Section 420 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month.

4. Appeal preferred by respondent No.2 Nagahia Singh was allowed vide judgment dated 22.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, thereby setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, observed in para 23 of the judgment that the agreement to sell dated 7.11.2006 (Mark-A) allegedly executed in favour of Maha Singh, was not proved on record. The relevant extracts from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, would read as under:-

"23. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution when carefully scrutinized, it leaves no manner of doubt that the evidence so adduced by the prosecution speaks volumes that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC have not been established. The agreement to sell dated 7.11.2006 'Mark-A' allegedly in favour of Maha Singh son of Banta Singh has not been proved on the file, which is a marked document. Thus, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court is of the considered opinion that the lis is of a civil nature. Hence, there is considerable merit in the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant Sh. Davinder Gupta, Advocate. The learned trial Court has, thus, fallen in an error by convicting the accused under Section 420 of the IPC."

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.2 was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 420 IPC by the trial Court as ingredients of Section 420 IPC were duly proved and respondent No.2 had dishonest intentions from the very beginning as he had knowingly entered into an agreement with the petitioner when there was an agreement with one Maha Singh and still further he had also executed another sale deed Ex. PB/1 in favour of Smt. Ranjit Kaur. The earnest money of Rs.1.00 lac which was handed ov