(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 19 th May, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge upholding the judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 14 th December, 2005 convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and vide order on sentence dated 29 th May, 2006 the Petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Courts below are erroneous on facts and law. Learned Appellate Court has overlooked the evidence placed on record. It is stated that the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that there are contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and hence the same are unreliable. The impugned judgment of the trial court is based upon presumption. The witnesses have deposed that the amount was given through third person Hari Ram who has not been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution in the present case has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Petitioner. Thus, the impugned judgments are liable to be set-aside
(3.) Per contra learned APP for the State contends that the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality. The prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed against the petitioner. PW3 has clearly stated that on the pretext of arranging a government job, he handed over Rs. 13,000/- to the petitioner. He was even taken to Ajmer and Jaiselmer by the petitioner where he was informed that he had been selected in CRPF but formalities were to be completed in Delhi. PW5 and PW6 have corroborated the version of PW3. Thus there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner. Learned trial court and the learned Appellate Court have thus correctly invoked the provisions of section 420 IPC. The present petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.