Santokh Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

Alok Singh, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 17.8.2009, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, by virtue of which the accused-Respondent was acquitted of the charge u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code.

The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of this petition is that in the month of August, 1997 accused Joginder Singh came to the complainant and asked him that he is wanted to send his relative to foreign. Jagtar Singh accused, with intention to deceive the complainant, demanded Rs. 2.50 lakhs for sending her to Germany, out of which the complainant gave him Rs. 85,000/- on 13.8.1999. The complainant again paid another sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the accused. The complainant and his sister-in-law Amarjit Kaur were called upon by the accused so many times at Delhi, but they were sent back on one pretext or the other. As per the complainant the accused had neither returned the amount nor had sent Amarjit Kaur to abroad despite several requests. On the basis of this complaint, a case was registered against the accused. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation the challan was presented against the accused.

Accused was charge sheeted for an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined five witnesses and thereafter closed the prosecution evidence. Statement of accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication, however, no defence was led by him. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, available on the record, acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the complainant has preferred the present revision petition. Alongwith the petition, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the 253 days delay in filing the revision petition has been filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the record.

The ground taken by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner for condoning the delay of 253 days in filing the revision petition is that the Petitioner was informed by his counsel that the appeal would be filed against the acquittal of the accused by the Government Pleader, but later on the Government Pleader informed him that since it was a complaint case, therefore, appeal or revision could not be filed by the complainant and in this manner the delay of 253 days has occurred.

A bare perusal of the application for condonation of delay reveals that it is not specifically mentioned as to when the Petitioner approached the Government Pleader for filing the appeal or revision against the impugned judgment. No specific date has been mentioned in the application as to when the learned Government Pleader allegedly informed the Petitioner that the appeal or revision can only be filed by the complainant since it was a complaint case. Surprisingly, in this manner the delay of 253 days has occurred. It is a well settled principle of law that each day''s delay has to be explained. The impugned judgment was passed by the learned Magistrate on 17.8.2009 and it appears that the Petitioner slept over the matter like a Kumbhakaran slumber and treated the present petition in a very casual manner and in this way, delay of 253 days has occurred. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to show any reasonable cause for condonation of delay.

Even otherwise on merits also, after going through the record I find that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and has rightly came to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to prove the guilt of the accused. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial. As such there is no justification for this Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to reach the finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of any manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.

As the Petitioner has failed to show any reasonable or sufficient cause for condonation of delay, therefore, there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay and as such the same is hereby dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the present petition is dismissed being time barred as well as on merits.