-1-
Criminal Revision No.4305 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.4305 of 2016
Date of Decision: 03.07.2018
Surinder Kumar
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: – Ms. Avin Kaur Sandhu, Advocate, for
Mr. H.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep S. Gill, DAG, Punjab.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 23.12.2013 of the trial Court, whereby petitioner has
been convicted under Section 406 IPC in case FIR No.117 dated 02.04.2008
registered under Sections 406, 420 and 201 IPC at Police Station Phase 1,
Mohali, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
and to pay fine of `300/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three days and the judgment dated 04.11.2016 of
the First Appellate Court, affirming the judgment aforesaid of the trial
Court.
According to prosecution, Gurbachan Singh, when did not
succeed in his business of selling motor spare parts/car accessories at
Mohali, sold out his goods to the petitioner on heavy discounted rates.
Initially, petitioner paid some amount to the complainant, but later on
1 of 4
08-07-2018 09:41:11 :::
-2-
Criminal Revision No.4305 of 2016
became dis-honest. Finally, an amount of `94,975/- was pending against
the petitioner, which he did not pay and accordingly he was booked and
challaned under Section 406 IPC.
The trial Court after holding trial, held the petitioner guilty under
Section 406 IPC and sentenced him as above vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2013.
Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal, which too was dismissed
vide impugned judgment dated 04.11.2016 by the First Appellate Court,
affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts
below failed to appreciate that matter in dispute between the petitioner
accused and the complainant was of civil nature. The complainant knowing
that the limitation to file a suit for recovery has expired, intentionally lodged
false FIR against the petitioner, giving it a criminal colour. Lone
independent witness examined by the complainant turned hostile and,
therefore, both the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner. For
how much amount offence of criminal breach of trust was committed by the
petitioner was not disclosed by the complainant. The complainant has
simply filed his complaint before the police in order to help him to recover
some amount from the petitioner and not for lodging any FIR against the
petitioner. Therefore, the police has illegally registered a case against the
petitioner. Petitioner is a first time offender.
On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence, submitting that petitioner has rightly
been convicted, therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having given considerable thought to the submissions made by
2 of 4
08-07-2018 09:41:12 :::
-3-
Criminal Revision No.4305 of 2016
both the sides, this Court finds that instant petition is completely devoid of
any merit for the reasons to follow.
Complainant Gurbachan Singh as PW2 has produced document
Ex.PW2/A before the trial Court showing transaction in between him and
the petitioner-accused in the year 2003, which bore the signatures of the
petitioner. Signatures of the petitioner on the said document were got
compared by the police from his specimen signatures through Forensic
Science Laboratory, Punjab and vide report Ex.EXPX it was reported that
signatures in question and the specimen signatures are of one and the same
person.
In the instant case, in a span of 15 years, despite conviction of the
petitioner, he never intended to pay money to the complainant nor made any
such effort which proves his mens rea that from the very beginning he had
illegal intention to commit criminal breach of trust and defraud the
complainant. The mens rea of the petitioner in committing criminal breach
of trust is proved from the fact that he sold the goods entrusted to him by
the complainant and misappropriated the sale proceeds and thereafter kept
on dilly-dallying the payments to the complainant either on one pretext or
the other. Not only this, the petitioner just kept on making false promises to
the complainant.
It is needless to mention here that in a case of criminal breach of
trust, it is always the choice of the complainant either to exhaust civil
remedy or to initiate criminal action against the accused. Considering this
aspect of the matter, no fault can be found in the action of complainant
Gurbachan Singh for lodging criminal complaint against the petitioner.
There are concurrent findings of both the Courts below which do
3 of 4
08-07-2018 09:41:12 :::
-4-
Criminal Revision No.4305 of 2016
not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
Dismissed.
CJM, Mohali is directed to issue warrants of arrest against the
petitioner to serve the remaining sentence.
(RAMENDRA JAIN)
July 03, 2018 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
08-07-2018 09:41:12 :::