RAJENDER NATH BERRY @ VAIRI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is in revision against the judgment dated 14.07.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide which his appeal was partly accepted. His conviction under Section 420 IPC was maintained, however, conviction and sentence under Section 406 IPC was set aside.

(2.) TRIAL Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - under Section 420 IPC and in the event of default in payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and sentenced him to undergo sentence of two years and fine of Rs.1,000/ - under Section 406 IPC and in the event of default, further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(3.) THE prosecution story started with the allegations that complainant -Chand Ram moved a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra with the allegations that complainant has two sons namely Manjit Singh and Raj Rishi, one Kaka was friend of Raj Rishi who was running STD shop in Jyoti Nagar, Kurukshetra. Kaka informed Raj Rishi that if he intends to go abroad then he can introduce him with an agent. One person namely Anil Kumar was also sitting in the shop. In October, Kaka along with Anil came to the house of the complainant where his wife and sons were present. Kaka and Anil assured the complainant family that they will send Manjit Singh to Mexico. Anil Kumar told them that he will again come to the house of the complainant after 15 -20 days along with Sandeep and Atul Kumar, residents of Delhi. Deal was struck for a sum of Rs.5 lacs. On 15.11.2000 at about 02:00/03:00 p.m., Anil along with Sandeep Kumar and Atul Kumar came to the house of the complainant along with their father. The complainant could arrange only Rs.3 lacs and accordingly the same amount was paid to Anil. After sometime, son of the complainant made telephonic call to the complainant and stated that they have been cheated. Son of the complainant came back from Delhi because accused did not arrange immigration and after visit to one Hussain, complainant along with Hussain, Sardarji and his gunman went to the house of Atul and on raising demand, father of the accused flatly refused to return the amount and threatened the complainant party with dire consequences. Thereafter, complainant paid Rs.1,05,000/ - to Mr. Hussain for immigration of his son to abroad i.e. America. Mr. Hussain dropped his son on the way and thereafter, complainant and his wife again visited Sandeep Kumar, Atul Kumar and father of the accused and demanded their amount back. Accused refused to return the amount. With this background, complainant sought action against the accused persons.