AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision has been filed against the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 420 IPC recorded by the Courts below. The petitioner was awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. The revision -petitioner executed an agreement to sell dated 19.06.2004 in respect of sale of 8 kanals of land for a consideration of Rs.1,60,000/ - and received Rs.73,200/ - towards earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by 18.06.2005. The petitioner did not execute the sale deed but it was found that he had already executed a release deed in respect of the his land in favour of his wife on 25.05.2004. By the time the agreement to sell was executed there was no entry of mutation in favour of his wife in the revenue record. Complainant Kulwant Singh made a complaint to the Magistrate who sent it to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 26 dated 05.03.2005 was registered by the Police.

(2.) EVIDENCE in abundance was led before the trial Court for proving agreement to sell and the release deed. But the factum of execution of these documents is not disputed in the instant revision. The argument raised before the Courts below is that in fact the complainant was not able to pay the balance amount of sale consideration although wife of petitioner had always been ready and willing to execute the sale deed. This FIR was registered on 05.03.2005 but till today the sale deed has been executed in favour of the complainant. The above contention, therefore, is not available to the petitioner. In fact the existence of a release deed in favour of wife of the petitioner should have been disclosed in the agreement to sell itself unless the intention of petitioner was to commit cheating and inducing the complainant to part with huge amount of money.

(3.) FACED with the above facts, learned counsel for petitioner did not challenge the conviction recorded by the Courts below. Therefore, notice of motion was issued only qua the quantum of sentence or to consider prayer for releasing petitioner on probation.