Amrit Singh vs Tarlochan Singh

A. S. Nehra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated December 14, 1987, by which the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and their conviction and sentence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, was set aside and they were also acquitted of the charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, and the fine, if paid was ordered to be refunded to them.

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under :

Amrit Singh, appellant, filed a complaint under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, against Gurcharan Singh, his father Tarlochan Singh, his mother Motia Wanti and Mohan Singh, brotherinlaw of Tarlochan Singh. It was stated therein that the respondents and Gurcharan Singh in connivance with each other had received a sum of Rs. 28,000/ from the appellant and his friend Nirmal Singh in February, 1983 on the pretext that the appellant would be sent abroad. They had also assured the appellant of foreign employment. They had allegedly received a sum of Rs. 28,000/ from the appellant and his friend Nirmal Singh and took them to Bombay, where both of them were made to stay for three months and eleven days. The respondents and Gurcharan Singh themselves slipped away from Bombay leaving the appellant and his friend behind. The appellant returned to his village. Tarlochan Singh, respondent, sent a telegraphic message to the father of the appellant to the effect that Gurcharan Singh, if in the village, be sent to Bombay. Thereafter the appellant made several attempts to contact the respondents for refund of Rs. 14,000/ given by him to them, in response to which the respondents put them off on various pretexts from time to time. It was further alleged by the appellant that the respondents conspired together to cheat him and his friend of a sum of Rs. 28,000/ on the assurance that some employment would be ensured to the appellant abroad.

Upon the preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents and Gurcharan Singh accused for the offence under Sections 405 and 420, Indian Penal Code, ordered the summoning of all of them vide order dated March 22, 1985. The respondents appeared in the court, but Gurcharan Singh''s presence could not be procured and he was, therefore, declared to be a proclaimed offender.

After the summoning of the respondents, the complainant himself appeared as his own witness and reiterated the version as stated by him in the complaint. He also examined his father Sardara Singh (P.W. 2), who corroborated his version.

On going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing their respective counsel, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, by his judgment and order dated July 15, 1987, convicted and sentenced the respondents under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, as under :

Under Section 406 IPC : R.I. for six months each.

Under Section 420, IPC : R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/ each; in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month each.

Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

Against their conviction and sentence, the respondents preferred appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. On December 14, 1987, the appellant and the respondents (in this appeal) filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, for according permission to compound the case. The application was signed by the appellant and the respondents and their respective counsel. The application was accompanied by compromise deed of even date and was duly signed by the appellant and the respondents and their respective counsel in the lower appellate Court. Paras 2, 3 and 4 of the application dated December 14, 1987, read as under :

(2) That the respondent had some misunderstanding against the appellants. The same has been removed due to the intervention of some respectables and friends. The complainantrespondent has been fully compensated and he has now no grouse against the appellants;

(3) That the respondent undertakes to withdraw the suit pending against the appellants as his claim has been fully satisfied. The case pending at Dehradun will be withdrawn against the complainant.

(4) That the permission to compound the offence under Section 420, IPC, will restore better relations between the parties, who are related and will also result in harmony amongst them. No case under Section 406, IPC, is made out against them."

In para 3 of the judgment, the Additional Sessions Judge has observed thus :

"A sum of Rs. 8,500/ has been paid in cash to the complainant respondent on behalf of the accused in full satisfaction of the claim of the amount which he had paid. In the circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to allow the composition and I order accordingly."

In view of the composition of the offence with the complainantappellant, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents herein under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and acquitted them of the charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the appeal is bereft of any merit. The appeal is also not maintainable in view of the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had allowed the appeal of the respondents in view of the joint application filed by the appellant and the respondents for permission to compound the offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.