RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been directed against judgment dated 23.03.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the appeal preferred by convicts Sushil Kumar and Hari Ram Sharma against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2011 and 18.05.2011, respectively, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani in regard to conviction and sentence of the appellants (respondents No. 2 and 3 herein) for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') was allowed and their conviction and sentence was set aside.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner would contend that the learned Court in appeal has passed the impugned judgment, without scrutinising the evidence with care and as a result, fell into a grave error in reversing the well founded findings recorded by the learned trial Court. It is argued with vehemence that respondents No. 2 and 3 are guilty of committing offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as they received various deposits from different persons, who were persuaded by the petitioner to deposit their money in the business, being carried out by the respondents, who had agreed to refund the amount along with interest thereon. It is further argued that due to criminal conduct of the private respondents, the petitioner had to make payment of the maturity amount to the investors to the tune of Rs.4,44,000/ - and the respondents still owe money to various depositors, who deposited the amount with Juno Credit and Investment Private Limited, having its Head Office at Ghaziabad and a branch at Bhiwani.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file.