Jagdish Punchhi vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Case FIR No. 167 dated 20.9.1986 was recorded at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar under Sections 420/406 IPC. The case FIR was investigated. The Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that four persons, namely, Subhash Dhir, Hari Parshad, Jagat Parkash and Jagdish Punchhi had duped 41 persons to the tune of Rs. 2,43,800/- on pretext of procurement of job and migration to Dubai. Out of four persons nominated as accused, Subhash Dhir and Hari Parshad were declared as proclaimed offenders. Jagat Parkash and Jagdish Punchhi were tried and convicted by the trial Court u/s 420 read with Section 120-B IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved against the judgment of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, an appeal was filed. The appeal was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar who concurred with the findings of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.

Two revision petitions have been instituted in this Court. Criminal Revision No. 434 of 1998 has been preferred by Jagdish Punchhi and Criminal Revision No. 474 of 1998 has been preferred by Jagat Parkash.

A perusal of FIR reveal that ''Aden Trade Test'' had advertised in Punjab Kesri regarding employment in Dubai on 14th and 15th of August, 1986. In response to advertisement, various persons applied and had paid the amount to one Subhash Dhir who was managing the firm. It was further stated that Jagdish Bhardwaj was residing at House No. 73, M.C. Colony, Hisar and was partner of the firm. The persons who had deposited money and their number was found to be 41, made various efforts to trace out Subhash Dhir who left Hisar on 14.9.1986. Subhash Dhir and Jagdish Bhardwaj were not traceable.

To assail the judgments of Courts below, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal has stated that prosecution has not placed any document on record to show that any receipt was executed by any of the accused including the petitioners. It has been further submitted that except a bald admission that the present petitioners used to remain in company of Subhash Dhir and doing the work of passport preparation, no other allegation has been levelled against the petitioners. It has been further stated that out of 26 witnesses examined, only few witnesses have named the petitioners and they were duly confronted with the statements made before the police where they had not stated what was stated by them in the Court. Mr. Aggarwal has stated that this is a material improvement and this should have been taken into consideration by the Courts below.

What is the effect of improvement?, is appreciation of evidence. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, will not go into re-appreciation and re-appraisal of evidence. The Appellate Court below had taken into consideration the fact that the petitioners have been convicted with aid of Section 120-B IPC and held that criminal conspiracy from the criminal acts has been committed by the accused. The Courts below had rightly relied upon Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that the petitioners are responsible for the acts of other accused. Illustration to Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act has been read in Court. The Courts below has further relied upon testimony of Babu Lal PW16 to state that Jagdish Punchhi had published advertisement in the newspaper. The Courts below has relied upon testimony of Ram Mehar PW20 and Satbir Singh PW21 to hold that petitioners were part of the conspiracy. The Appellate Court relied upon testimony of Ratti Ram PW22 when he stated that amount was handed over to Jagdish accused.

I have perused the judgments of the Courts below and find no infirmity. It cannot be said that reasoning adopted by the Courts below is perverse. At this stage, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal appearing for the petitioners has stated that in the present case occurrence pertain to the year 1986 and the petitioners have suffered protracted trial of 24 years. It has been further submitted that petitioners are of very old age, therefore, their sentence be reduced to the one already undergone. This contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted as 41 persons were duped. However, the contention regarding protracted trial can be taken into consideration for reduction of the sentence. Accordingly, I reduce the sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment.

With aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, both the petitions are disposed off.