SALEEM KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, accused-petitioner has challenged judgment dated 23rd of March 2017 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned appellate Court') whereby learned appellate Court has affirmed verdict dated 20 th of May, 2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court') convicting him for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

(2.) Learned trial Court upon conclusion of trial indicted petitioner for offence under Section 406 IPC and handed down sentence of two years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for three months' simple imprisonment. Likewise, while convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC, handed down sentence of three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for six months' simple imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved of the same, petitioner approached learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court upon re- appreciation of evidence fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court.

(3.) The facts in brief giving rise to present revision petition are that a complaint is filed by complainant against petitioner attributing offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. In the complaint, it is, inter alia, alleged by complainant that in lieu of consideration of one plot bearing No.166 of Khasra No.92/2, Hinglaz Nagar, Suthla, petitioner accepted earnest money to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- while valuing the said plot at Rs.25 lacs. It is further averred in the complaint that after accepting the earnest money, neither the amount was refunded by the petitioner, nor requisite sale-deed was executed by him in favour of the complainant. With the advent of time, investigation was carried out in the matter and petitioner was charge-sheeted pursuant to FIR No.31/2015. During trial, prosecution examined six witnesses and also tendered some documents in evidence. Learned trial Court after recording statement of prosecution witnesses, complainant recorded statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and finally convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The effort made by the petitioner to assail judgment of learned trial Court proved abortive and the appellate Court rejected the appeal. Therefore, in that background, petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.