The court affirmed the verdict of acquittal due to lack of evidence and concluded that the dispute was purely civil. The court allowed the criminal revision petition and acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 420 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - CRM-39019-2014 IN CRM-A-1920-MA-2014

1. Since the institution of the instant application seeking leave to appeal, before this Court, at the instance of the complainant, against the verdict of acquittal, as made by the learned trial Court concerned, on 14.7.2014, upon complaint bearing No. 170 of 2006, is barred by a delay of about 82 days. However, when the said period of delay has been sufficiently explained. Therefore, the delay of 82 days, in filing the instant application seeking leave to appeal, is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRM-A-1920-MA-2014

1. The complainant one Manish Gupta instituted a complaint bearing No. 170 of 2006 in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. Thereins, he arrayed one Harpal Singh as an accused. He alleged that the accused had committed offences, constituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and, under Section 506 of the IPC.

2. The learned trial Judge concerned, through a decision, as made thereons on 14.7.2014, proceeded to record a verdict of acquittal in respect of offences constituted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406 of the IPC but made a verdict of conviction in respect of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order, drawn on 14.7.2014, the learned trial Judge concerned, imposed upon the convict, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment extending upto a term of two years for commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, and, also imposed upon the convict the sentence of fine, comprised in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Moreover, in default of payment of fine amount, he sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

3. The above verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), became challenged by the aggrieved convict, before the learned Appellate Court concerned. The learned Appellate Court concerned, through a decision made on 11.1.2019, upon Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2014, rather dismissed the above appeal. Resultantly, the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), as became respectively made, and, imposed upon the convict rather became affirmed, and, maintained by the learned Appellate Court concerned.

4. The convict becomes aggrieved from the concurrent verdicts of conviction, and, also from the concurrently imposed sentence(s), upon him, and, hence has chosen to institute thereagainst Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2019, before this Court. Moreover, the complainant is also aggrieved from the concurrently made verdicts of acquittal, as made by both the learned Courts below, in respect of offences constituted under Sections 467, 468, 471 and under Section 406 of the IPC, and, hence has chosen to institute thereagainst CRM-A-1920-MA of 2014, before this Court.

5. Since both the Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2019, and, CRM- A-1920-MA of 2014, arise from a common thereto verdicts, thus, they are amenable for a common decision being made thereons. Reasons for affirming the verdict of acquittal as made by the learned Courts below qua offences constituted under Sections 467, 468, 471 and under Section 406 of the IPC

6. The genesis of the complaint, is embodied in an agreement to sell, purportedly executed amongst the complainant and the accused. The said agreement to sell is comprised in Ex. C1. The land enumerated thereins, is reflected to be contracted to be sold by the accused to the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,25,000/-. From the amongst the contractually agreed sale consideration, as made in respect of land measuring 12 kanals 16 marlas, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, is recited in Ex. C1 to be paid at the phase of drawings thereof, hence as earnest money to the accused, by the complainant.

The date for execution of the registered deed of conveyance, in respect of the land, as disclosed in Ex. C1, is mentioned thereins to be 30.7.2005. Moreover, it is also stipu