CRR-1137-2021 (O&M)

-1-

103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR-1137-2021 (O&M)

Date of decision : 05.10.2021

Jeet Singh and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

(Through Video Conferencing)

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the present Criminal Revision Petition is to the

judgment dated 07.12.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Kurukshetra, as well as the judgment dated 27.01.2020 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.

The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, vide its

judgment dated 07.12.2015, had convicted the present petitioners under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as

“the IPC”) read with Section 120-B of the IPC and had sentenced the

petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years

and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment

of fine, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

PAWAN KUMAR

2021.10.06 18:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR-1137-2021 (O&M)

-2-

period of three months each.

An appeal preferred by both the petitioners against the

abovesaid judgment was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Kurukshetra vide its judgment dated 27.01.2020 as far as conviction

under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC is concerned. However, the

sentence which had been imposed by the trial Court was modified and the

rigorous imprisonment of three years was reduced to one year.

Against the abovesaid judgments, the present Criminal

Revision Petition has been filed.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that complaint

No.165 dated 31.08.2009 was made by Mahipal son of Mahavir Singh

resident of District Kurukshetra, for registration of the FIR against both

the petitioners namely Jeet Ram and Gian Singh and the other accused

persons namely Jiya Lal, Kavita and Javed Faizal. As per the said

complaint, it had been stated that the complainant was an agriculturist by

profession and had 10 acres of land and he used to earn his livelihood by

doing agricultural work and he had two sons, one of whom was Mehak

Singh, who was matriculate pass and on 06.06.2007, the complainant met

Jiya Lal son of Sh. Jagat Singh at his shop and during the conversation

with the said Jiya Lal, the complainant learnt that Jiya Lal did the job of

emigration and that he had also sent his nephew Suresh to France, who

was now earning a handsome income there and he could also send Mehak

Singh (son of the complainant) abroad to earn a high income. In the

meantime, Gian Singh (petitioner No.2) who is the brother of the accused

PAWAN KUMAR

2021.10.06 18:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR-1137-2021 (O&M)

-3-

Jiya Lal, also came there and the said Gian Singh told the complainant

that the financial condition of his house had completely changed after his

son had gone abroad and even the said Gian Singh told the complainant

to send his son abroad for securing his future. The complainant was told

that a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- would be required for sending his son abroad.

The accused persons including the petitioners assured the complainant

that his son would get a job over there and in view of the said

inducement, the complainant on 10.09.2007, delivered the amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused persons, after borrowing the same from the

Commission Agent and further a sum of Rs.50,000/-, passport of his son

namely Mehak Singh, 8 photographs and other necessary documents,

were also delivered to the accused persons. The accused persons told the

complainant that they would approach one Javed in Delhi who had

connections with the officials of the Embassy and also told the

complainant to make arrangement for the remain