JAGDISH PUNCHHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE FIR No. 167 dated 20.9.1986 was recorded at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar under Sections 420/406 IPC. The case FIR was investigated. The Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that four persons, namely, Subhash Dhir, Hari Parshad, Jagat Parkash and Jagdish Punchhi had duped 41 persons to the tune of Rs. 2,43,800/ - on pretext of procurement of job and migration to Dubai. Out of four persons nominated as accused, Subhash Dhir and Hari Parshad were declared as proclaimed offenders. Jagat Parkash and Jagdish Punchhi were tried and convicted by the trial Court under Section 420 read with Section 120 -B IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each. In default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved against the judgment of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, an appeal was filed. The appeal was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar who concurred with the findings of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.

(2.) TWO revision petitions have been instituted in this Court. Criminal Revision No. 434 of 1998 has been preferred by Jagdish Punchhi and Criminal Revision No. 474 of 1998 has been preferred by Jagat Parkash.

(3.) TO assail the judgments of Courts below, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal has stated that prosecution has not placed any document on record to show that any receipt was executed by any of the accused including the petitioners. It has been further submitted that except a bald admission that the present petitioners used to remain in company of Subhash Dhir and doing the work of passport preparation, no other allegation has been levelled against the petitioners. It has been further stated that out of 26 witnesses examined, only few witnesses have named the petitioners and they were duly confronted with the statements made before the police where they had not stated what was stated by them in the Court. Mr. Aggarwal has stated that this is a material improvement and this should have been taken into consideration by the Courts below.