AMRIT LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMRIT Lal son of Bhagwan Dass was tried in case FIR No. 98 dated 13.12.1990 registered at Police Station Dialpura for offences under Sections 4 and 5 of Prize, Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In short, the allegations against the petitioner is that he started a lottery scheme whereby a person has to pay Rs. 100/- to the accused on a promise that in return a draw of lots will be taken up every month and various prizes consisting of Hero Honda Motorcycle in the first month, colour T.V. or Rs. 7000/- during 50th month, TVS moped in the 31st month etc. were to be given as prizes. Details of the prizes and the methodology of the scheme have been given in para 1 of the trial Court judgment and it will be apposite here to reproduce the same :

(2.) THIS Court, for adjudication has only to rely upon two judgments, i.e. the judgment of the trial Court and that of the lower appellate Court. As trial Court record is not available, on February 20, 2008, this court requisitioned the trial Court record but the same was not received. On March 24, 2008 a request from District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda was received that the In- charge of Record Room (Judicial) Rampura has been requested to send the record but despite the request and orders of this Court, trial Court record is not available. On 23rd April, 2008, this Court passed a very detailed order and requested the registry to telephonically seek explanation as to why the record has not been received.

(3.) AT this stage, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal has stated that he is also having a scanty record in his brief and his various attempts to contact the petitioner have failed as the age of the petitioner was recorded 57 years in the trial Court judgment and about 15 years are going to elapse, therefore, the petitioner will be more than 73 years old. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal has further stated that his various communications to the petitioner have elicited no response, therefore, even he cannot be sure whether the petitioner is alive or not. Mr. Aggarwal has further stated that various dates, he has been appearing and since record has not been received, the petitioner should be granted benefit of protracted trial and his sentence should be reduced to already undergone taking into account his age, i.e. more than 73 years and the fact that occurrence pertains to year 1991.