Ashok Kumar @ Bittu vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Petitioner had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). The trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 23.2.2010 convicted and sentenced the petitioner qua commission of offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. The said judgment and order were upheld by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.7.2012 with the modification that the sentence qua imprisonment, as ordered by the trial Court, was reduced to two years from 2 1/2 years Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioner had taken money from various persons for sending them abroad. Sukhwinder Singh had paid Rs. 12,00,000/- to the petitioner for sending him to America. On 16.10.2002, Sukhwinder Singh was to board the flight to America from Delhi. However, no flight could be arranged. During investigation, it transpired that, in fact, the petitioner had taken Rs. 27,90,000/- from various persons for sending them abroad. In pursuance to the disclosure statement suffered by the petitioner during investigation, passports of Hardeep Singh, Darshan Singh, Rajinder Singh and Darshan Singh son of Gurdev Singh were recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the petitioner u/s 420 IPC. In fact, the petitioner was innocent. The recovery memos with regard to the passports alleged to have been recovered on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the petitioner were not signed by the petitioner.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Sukhwinder Singh, PW-2 Raghbir Singh, PW-3 Lakhwant Singh, PW-4 Maghar Singh, PW-5 Pritam Singh, PW-6 Teja Singh, PW-14 Ranjit Singh, PW-15 Kailey Shah, PW-16 Hardeep Singh and PW-17 Darshan Singh. The said witnesses deposed as per the prosecution case. It has been noticed by the trial Court that there was nothing in the cross-examination of the said witnesses that no payment as alleged by them has ever been made to the petitioner. The petitioner had taken huge amount of money from various persons for sending them abroad. The said persons were neither sent abroad nor the money paid by them was returned to them. The fact that recovery memo with regard to recovery of passports during investigation was not signed by the petitioner cannot be said to be a ground for acquittal of the petitioner. It is a settled proposition of law that any lapse committed by the investigating officer during investigation would not lead to the inference that the other material evidence on record proving the guilt of the accused was liable to be ignored. The disclosure statements suffered by the petitioner were duly signed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.