JASVIR KAUR & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE record in this case was summoned as the counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the FIR, for which the petitioners were proceeded against and convicted, was different from the one for which the charge was framed. A perusal of the record would show that this typing correction was carried out by the Court on 2.1.2010 and the FIR number as well as the offences were accordingly corrected. This submission of the counsel is, thus, meaningless. Thereafter, the counsel has made submissions on merits. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had accepted a sum of Rs. 70,000/ - on the ground that they will arrange job of Constable for the complainant. The Courts below have referred to the evidence led by the prosecution. PW -1 Gurmit Kaur has given a categorical statement that Avtar Singh resides in village Kauni, which is her parental village. He is brother -in -law of Ginder Singh (wife's brother) and was serving in PAP Jalandhar. They had a talk with Ginder Singh and Jasvir Kaur for getting a job for her son Angrej Singh. The matter was settled for Rs. 1,40,000/ - and Rs. 50,000/ - was paid to the accused by her at his quarter at Jalandhar. At that time, her son was with her. A sum of Rs. 20,000/ - was paid at Sadiq, but no job was arranged. The submission that Avtar Singh has not been examined as a witness, in my view, would not make much difference. He was a go -between for this payment of money. Once the evidence of a person, who has paid the money and the witness, who has witnessed the same, has been recorded, non -examination of Avtar Singh would not make any material difference. The statements of witnesses clearly revealed that the accused persons had relatives at Village Kauni from where Gurmit Kaur hails. The Court, thus, rightly drew inference that the petitioners could indulge in such activity. The submissions made on the basis of these points and that petitioner No. 2 being on duty are all red herring, which would not make much difference. There is positive evidence which has been rightly appreciated and conviction recorded. I do not see any reason to interfere in the view formulated by the trial court and upheld by the Appellate court.

(2.) THE revision is accordingly dismissed.