(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:23)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:24)(cid:3)ti(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:2)(cid:30)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:27)(cid:3)

(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:31) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)

(cid:29) !"(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:29)"#$%$(cid:5)&(cid:3)’(cid:11)(cid:31)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:11)(

(cid:19) ) (cid:3)*$&+, (cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)ti"!$!$(cid:5)&")

-")%.%

*! !"(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:3)ti.&/ 0(cid:3) &1(cid:3) &(cid:5)!,")(cid:3)

(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:2)"%2(cid:5)&1"&!

(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:27)(cid:16)’(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:4)3(cid:28)4(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:23)*(cid:19)(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:3)*(cid:23)(cid:2)(cid:30)(cid:27)(cid:3)ti(cid:27)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:27)ti(cid:3)*(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:20)

Present : Mr. R.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. (cid:3)*(cid:23)(cid:2)(cid:30)(cid:27)(cid:3)ti(cid:27)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:27)ti(cid:3)*(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:3) 5 (cid:3) (cid:26) (cid:6)(cid:3) (cid:3) (Oral) :

A trial conducted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, arising out of FIR No.43 dated 12.04.2008, Police Station Sadar Malerkotla culminated into a judgment of conviction against the petitioner.

2. Once the petitioner was convicted by virtue of order dated

26.08.2010 following sentence was awarded to the petitioner:5

3. Aggrieved of the above mentioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions, but the appeal preferred by the petitioner did not find favour in the Court of Sessions, and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, by virtue of order dated 11.08.2011, hereinafter being referred as ‘Appellate Court’.

4. In nut5shell, the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR was lodged at the instance of ‘Piara Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’. The pith and substance of the allegations contained in the FIR are that for sending the son of complainant, namely Gurpreet Singh to Kuwait Rs.1,41,000/5 on various dates as per details given in the complaint, was paid by the complainant to the petitioner. The petitioner had offered to send complainant's son ‘Gurpreet Singh’ to Kuwait through official channel. Money was received by the petitioner on the pretext of arranging visa on one occasion, air tickets on the other occasion and so on. However, neither the petitioner sent ‘Gurpreet Singh’ to Kuwait nor returned the money to the complainant and kept on delaying on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he refused to return the amount and thus, subjected the petitioner to cheating.

5. Once the FIR was lodged the requisite formalities with regard to investigation of this case were completed by the police. During the course of investigation the evidence indicting the involvement of petitioner in the commission, of offence was collected by the Investigating Officer and once the investigation was complete the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed which led to trial and ultimately the conviction of petitioner.

6. To prove its case the prosecution had examined ‘Piara Singh’ (complainant) as PW1. He repeated the entire case of the prosecution on solemn affirmation, and also proved the original application moved to ‘Sh.

Balwant Singh Ramuwalia’ dated 21.2.2008 as Ex. P5l, his statement recorded by the police as Ex.P52, attested photocopy of Passport of hi