LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-486

SURJIT SINGH Vs. HARMEET SINGH

Decided On April 01, 2015
SURJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
Harmeet Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant against judgment dated 8.3.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sangrur whereby respondent -Harmeet Singh has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 5.9.2014 whereby the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State has been dismissed.

(2.) AS per the prosecution allegations, the accused/respondent was running the business of travel agent in the name and style of 'Virk Travels' and was indulging in sending the people to foreign country by illegal means on the pretext of arranging jobs for them. In the month of September, 2006, the accused visited the house of the petitioner and asked his son Chamkaur Singh to send him to South Africa and can arrange employment for him in a good company and he will get handsome salary. He demanded Rs.15,00,000/ - for this purpose. His son Chamkaur Singh believed the accused. In the month of October 2006, a sum of Rs.8,00,000/ - was paid to the accused/respondent along with Birth Certificate, School Certificate and Ration Card of Chamkaur Singh and the accused/respondent assured that he will arrange visa for Chamkaur Singh within 15 to 20 days and will receive the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/ - at that time thereafter Rs.3,00,000/ - were further paid. The accused/respondent did not send Chamkaur Singh to abroad. He also failed to return the money. The accused/respondent issued post -dated cheques to return the money but the same were dishonoured. On the basis of the complaint moved by the present petitioner, the present case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

(3.) THE accused/respondent was charge -sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to substantiate the charges.