Shyam Sunder v. Sajjan Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.07.2023 Shyam Sunder ....Petitioner

Versus

Sajjan Singh and others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present:- Mr. Mahesh Saxena, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, D.A.G., Haryana for respondent No.5.

***** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision has been preferred by the Complainant impugning judgment dated 05.06.2018 passed by Ld. Appellate Court affirming judgment of acquittal of respondents No.1 to 4 passed by Ld. Trial Court. 2.

As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant purchased a truck after getting it financed from a Finance Company. It has been claimed by the complainant that he handed over the truck to accused Sajjan Singh (respondent No.1) with an understanding that the remaining installments shall be paid by Sajjan Singh (respondent No.1) and that he will maintain the vehicle and shall not misappropriate the same. It has further been claimed that Sajjan Singh (respondent No.1) failed to pay the installments and when

the complainant asked to return it, it was found that the same has been misappropriated by accused-Sajjan Singh (respondent No.1). 3.

Ld. Trial Court found that the only document which has come on record with respect to transfer is an affidavit executed by complainant claiming that he has sold the truck to accused Sajjan Singh (respondent No.1) i.e. Mark 'A' and another affidavit is Mark 'B' to the effect that Sajjan Singh (respondent No.1) further sold the truck to accused Sombir (respondent No.3). The finance company i.e. Megma Finance Company from whom the complainant obtained a loan has already sought appropriate civil remedy of recovery against the complainant. Keeping in view that Sajjan Singh (respondent No.2) paid few installments, it cannot be held that right from the beginning the respondent No.1 had an intention to cheat the complainant.

4.

It has been held by Courts below that once the case of the prosecution is that the complainant sold the truck to accused, they cannot allege offence punishable under Section 406 IPC against the accused. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that there is no legal infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by Ld. Trial Court and affirmed by Ld. Appellate Court.

5.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is limited and as per settled law unless any error of law on the part of Ld. Trial Court is pointed out, the same cannot be pressed seeking re-appreciation of evidence. Reference can be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Thankappan Nadar and others vs. Gopala Krishnan and another, 2002(9) SCC 393. As per settled law the revisional jurisdiction can

be exercised by the High Court in the cases of legal infirmities and as per the series of the precedents some of the illustrative categories are: i) where the Trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the party wish to produce.

ii) where the admissible evidence brought on record by the defence has been wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible. iii) where the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the case and yet the accused stands convicted.

iv) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court or the order has been passed by considering irrelevant evidence.

v) where the conviction is based upon a view which is impossible and improbable.

6.

Exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is much narrow as compared to appellate jurisdiction. 7.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any circumstance which would warrant exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the findings recorded by the Courts below.

8.

In the absence of any jurisdictional or legal error committed by the Courts below, this Court does not find any reason to exercise revisional jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence which is beyond the scope. Consequently, the findings recorded by the Courts below qua acquittal of respondent Nos.1 to 4 are affirmed.

9.

Revision petition is dismissed.

10.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE July 13, 2023 ashish Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No