CRR No.1304 of 2021 (O&M)

1

2023:PHHC:166155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on 12^th of October, 2023

Pronounced on 5^th of January, 2024

CRR No.1304 of 2021 (O&M)

Rajesh Jain

.....Petitioner

versus

Sandeep Mehra @ Bunty

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present :

Petitioner in person.

Mr. Dharam Bir Bhargav, Advocate and

Mr. Kulwinder Bhargav, Advocate for the respondent.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Complainant is in revision impugning judgment dated 9^th

of August, 2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby

though the finding w.r.t. the conviction has been upheld however

sentence awarded to the respondent/accused has been reduced to three

months.

2.

Petitioner has referred to the operative part of the judgment

contained in Para 9 which reads as under :

“9. At the time of arguments, the respondent/complainant

has pointed out the cross-examination of the accused also to

prove the pre-existing legal enforceable liability and non-

payment of the amount by the appellant/accused. In this regard, it

is observed that as per Section 315(1)(a) the accused can be

Deepak Kumar

2024.01.09 09:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR No.1304 of 2021 (O&M)

2

2023:PHHC:166155

examined as a defence witness on his own written request only

with permission of court and not otherwise. In the present case,

there is no written request available on the record and no such

request is mentioned in the zimni order. It appears that the

appellant/accused suffered a statement to close the evidence after

tendering documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 because the statement of

appellant/accused and his counsel has been jointly recorded and

both of them have signed the same. Thereafter, it appears that

suddenly crossexamination started on the asking of the

respondent/complainant by writing recalled for the cross-

examination. No oath has been administered to the witness/

accused and the evidence is not recorded on S.A. In such

circumstances, illegality has been committed and it becomes

questionable that whether this statement can be read into the

evidence or not. However, the respondent/complainant has

succeeded in proving his case from the other evidence.

Therefore, there is no need to go in detail in question whether

this evidence can be read in the evidence or not as the case is

established without this evidence also.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant/accused that respondent/complainant has not disclosed

the source of obtaining Rs.46,000/- which was given as alleged

loan. He has not disclosed his financial capacity. Therefore, loan

is not proved. In this regard, it is observed that amount of

Rs.46,000/- is not very huge amount. In normal course a person

of middle class can have such an amount. However, the copy of

bank account statement has been placed by the

respondent/complainant on record as Ex.CW2/A which reflects

that he was having sufficient amount.

It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant/accused that the amount has not been reflected in the

ITR by the respondent/complainant therefore, it is not established

that the said amount was given by him to appellant/accused. In

this regard, it is observed that it is not a very huge amount.

Moreover, if the amount is not reflected in the ITR then Income

Tax Authority can take action against respondent/complainant

Deepak Kumar

2024.01.09 09:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR No.1304 of 2021 (O&M)

3

2023:PHHC:166155

but conclusion can not be drawn that he has not given this

amount. Reliance in this regard given on the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Bijender Sharma Vs.

Anil Sabharwal (Supra). In such circumstances, the case law

produced by learned counsel for the appellant/accused laid down

by the Hon'ble Punjab &