Tek Singh vs State of Haryana

Harans Singh Rai, J. (Oral)

Tek Singh petitioner was convicted under section 410, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 20,00/ In default of payment of fine further R.I. for a period of six months by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide his order dated June 4, 1937. His appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge II, Bhiwani vide his order dated July 2, 1988. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The prosecution case is that Om Parkash owns 13 acres of land, but the land was not sufficient for earning the livelihood of all the members of the family. He contacted Tek Singh petitioner for recruitment and Tek Singh gave him an assurance that he will get him (Om Parkash) recruited in Central Reserve Police if he was willing to pay Rs. 4000/ to him (petitioner). On this assurance, On Parkash paid Rs. 4000/ to Tek Singh petitioner. Similarly, Bhim Singh, Krishan, Ravinder and Satbir were given assurances by the petitioner and they also paid him Rs. 4000/each.

Om Parkash and his associates met the petitioner a number of times and asked him to get them recruited in the Central Reserve Police or pay the money back, but neither they were recruited nor the money was paid back. The matter was reported to the police. The petitioner was arrested, challaned and convicted, as mentioned in the earlier part of the Judgment.

At the time of the preliminary hearing, it was ordered that the petitioner should deposit Rs. 20,000/ to be paid to the complainants. The money was deposited on August 20, 1988. Bhim Singh, Ravinder and Om Parkash, who were present on September 20, 1988, in Court were directed to be paid their share of the money i.e. Rs. 4000/ each. As Satbir and Krishan were not present, the case was adjourned. Today Krishan is present. The office may make the payment to Krishan and Satbir @ Rs. 4000/ each out of the amount of Rs. 20,000/ already deposited.

As the complainants have got their money back, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on probation, of good conduct. Therefore, it is ordered that he be released on probation on his entering into a bond in the sum or Rs. 5000/ with one surety in the like amount, for a period of one year, to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour and to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so, during the said period. It is further directed that the bond of good conduct shall be furnished within three months from today, failing which this revision shall stand dismissed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the lower Courts shall be maintained.

JUDGMENT accordingly