HARPAL SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2002 Harpal Singh Sandhu v. State of Uttaranchal. In the said judgment, the decision given by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun on 22.11.2002 was confirmed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate tried a Criminal Case no. 872 of 2002 State v. Harpal Singh Sandhu and others for the offence of Sections 420 & 406 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station Kotwali and that trial ended in conviction. Accused/revisionist Harpal Singh Sandhu was convicted under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years' imprisonment under Section 406 I.P.C. and four years' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/ - under Section 420 I.P.C., while Smt. Indu Arora was absolved of the charges of offence of Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) CONVICT Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu was in Jail for almost four years at the time of passing the sentence against him, but he preferred an appeal aforementioned, which was resulted in dismissal. Feeling still aggrieved, Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu has filed this revision before this Court against the concurrent findings of the courts below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has argued that revisionist Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu did not have any bad intention at the time of proclaiming himself as the Director / Manager of the company instigating the investment in the same. This argument is wholly unsubstantial because it was only Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu, who received the cash on behalf of the company and issued the post dated cheques to the investors with the assurance that the cash will be returned to them at an excessive rate of interest. The investors were allured at the instigation of Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu and his wife. He is the real beneficiary of the entire episode of cheating. Whole evidence (documentary as well as oral) is very strong, which has been produced and relied in and by the courts below. The argument that Sri Harpal Singh Sandhu was simply a Director / Manager of the Investment Company, so he should not be held liable for the act done by him, is quite shallow and cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. There is no infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence as well as the findings of the guilt recorded by both the courts below. This revision is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.