KIRANVIR SINGH @ JIMMY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Order shall dispose of two Criminal Revision Petitions bearing CRR No.51 of 2018 and CRR No.275 of 2018.

(2.) The above said two revision petitions have arisen from a common judgment and order passed by lower Appellate Court while deciding two different appeals, filed by two separate accused, but against the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Since both the petitioners herein were tried by the Trial Court through a common trial and were held guilty by the same judgment and also ordered to be sentenced through the same order of sentence, therefore, the present petitions are being taken up for hearing jointly and are being decided by single order despite the fact that, at the intermittent stage, two different appeals were filed by the two different accused challenging their conviction and sentence.

(3.) The facts of this case briefly stated are that complainant Jagir Singh son of Pritam Singh resident of village Partapgarh lodged an FIR No.338 dated 27.07.2009 under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, alleging therein that he was an agriculturist by profession. His son Mandip Singh was serving as a marketing person in City Finance Company; for procuring business for the finance company. He used to visit various customers for that purpose. In one of his such visits he visited the Eentertainment Group(Chhoti Baradari, Patiala), where Kiranvir Singh @Jimmy, Daljit Singh @Prince and Kulbir Kaur wife of Daljit Singh @Prince met his son and cajoled him why he was doing this lowly paid job. He should go abroad. Thereafter, they told the son of the complainant that the above said persons had already sent several boys to the foreign countries and got provided them the job; and permanently settled them there. They asked the son of the complainant that if he wanted to settle abroad then he could approach them. He showed his willingness to go abroad and told them that, first he will talk to his father i.e. to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant and his son Mandip Singh went to the office of the abovesaid persons, where they told that they will send him to the America and get him provided job for his permanent settlement in United States. But for this the cost would be Rs. 15 lakhs, which they could receive in two installments. They told that in the first instance the complainant would have to pay Rs. 5 lakhs and the remaining amount he can pay later on. The complainant borrowed this amount of Rs. 5 lakhs from his relatives and went to the office of the accused, alongwith Jasbir Singh and Bhupinder Singh. In the presence of these witnesses this amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was handed over to the accused in the month of May, 2007. After receiving the amount they told the complainant that they will get prepared the passport and other documents of his son and after the visa for his son is arranged; he will have to pay Rs. 10 lakh more. Thereafter, the accused informed the complainant that they had arranged visa for his son and that he should pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the accused. Hence the complainant got sanctioned a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from State Bank of Patiala, Branch-Agriculture, the Mall, Patiala; against his agricultural land situated in village Dullaba, District Patiala. The above said accused visited the house of the complainant and in the presence of Jasbir Singh and Bhupinder Singh the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid to the accused. Thereafter, the accused assured the complainant that his son would be taken to the America in 2/3 days. In the month of November, 2007, the above said persons had taken the son of the complainant to California. However, they were sent back to India due to the documents being incomplete. Since the son of the complainant was not settled in America, as promised by the accused, therefore, the complainant demanded his money back. The accused gave the cheque for return of the amount. However, the cheque was also dishonored. When the complainant again demanded money from the accused they started threatening the complainant. Hence the complainant lodged the above said FIR.