Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2223 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal Menariya v. State of Rajasthan

2009-10-27

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner has questioned the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 02.08.2002 as passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.43/2001 whereby the learned Appellate Judge upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC as made in the judgment and order dated 03.07.2001 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1 (South), Udaipur in Criminal Case No.61/2000 (Old No.349/1991) and maintained the substantive sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and further imprisonment for 3 months in default of payment of fine but set aside the order granting compensation in favour of the complainant. 2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 420 IPC after investigation on the complaint made by Smt.P.Rani Verma (PW-1), said to be the founder and principal of AVM Public School, Panchvati, Udaipur. The complainant stated that she got acquainted with the petitioner in the month of January 1989 for his son was studying in the said school; and that the petitioner, a lawyer by profession, was appointed as the Legal Adviser and was also selected to the Managing Committee of the school. It was alleged that the school was in the need of a matador van and the task of purchasing such a vehicle was entrusted to the petitioner; and, according to the complainant, the petitioner suggested the price of the vehicle at Rs.60,000/- and obtained this amount and further an amount of Rs.12,032/- towards sundry expenses but then, the complainant came to know in the month of December 1990 that the vehicle was, in fact, purchased from Saddique Mohammed (PW-2) only for Rs.33,000/-. The complainant, thus, alleged that the petitioner committed cheating by taking Rs.72,032/- from the institution. 3. The complainant, thus, alleged that the petitioner committed cheating by taking Rs.72,032/- from the institution. 3. Upon filing of the charge-sheet in the matter, the petitioner was charged of the offence under Section 420 IPC in the following terms:- " fd vkius ekg tqykbZ] 90 esa ;k blds yxHkx mn;iqj esa AVM ifCyd Ldwy ipoaVh mn;iqj laLFkk ' ds fy;s ,d esVkMksj ua0 GAA 6452 dks lnhd eksgEen ls 33000@& ( rsrhl gtkj :i;s ) esa [kjhn dh ysfdu diViwoZd Ny }kjk Qfj;knh Jherh jkuh oekZ] eSusftax V~LVh] fizlhiy AVM ifCyd Ldwy mn;iqj dks izofpar dj 60]000@& ( lkB gtkj ) :i;ksa esa [kjhn djuk crk dj vU; [kpksZa lghr 72032@& ( cgRrj gtkj cfRrl :i;s ) ifjnr djus ds fy, mRizsfjr fd;k] bl izdkj vkius tku cw>dj ,slk vijk/k fd;k tks /kkjk 420 I.P.C. ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k gSaA " 4. In evidence, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses namely, Smt.P.Rani Verma PW-1, Saddique Mohammed PW-2, Yakub Mohammed PW-3, Durga Shanker PW-4, Basant Singh PW-5, Dr.Davendra Sareen PW-6, D.K.Lala PW-7, Gopal Lal PW-8, Durjan Singh PW-9, Vijendra Vyas PW-10, and Hansbhai Patel PW-11 and produced the documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/37. On the other hand, in the first round of trial, the accused-petitioner examined three witnesses namely, Karan Singh Kothari DW-1, Smt.Sushila Kothari DW-2, and Prem Pakash DW-3 and produced the documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4. 5. After considering the matter, by the judgment and order dated 17.02.1999, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur City (South), Udaipur convicted the petitioner for the offence aforesaid and sentenced him to imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. However, the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.02.1999 were set aside in Appeal No.48/1999, as decided by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur on 20.01.2001. The learned Appellate Judge accepted the submissions of the petitioner-appellant that he was denied of proper opportunity of leading evidence and that he wanted to examine another witness Krishan Gopal Soni. While setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the learned Appellate Judge remanded the matter for decision afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioner-appellant to examine the said witness Kishan Gopal in his defence. 6. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court extended the opportunity to the petitioner to examine the said witness Krishan Gopal who was indeed examined as DW-4 and who produced the documents Ex.D/5 to Ex.D/7. 6. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court extended the opportunity to the petitioner to examine the said witness Krishan Gopal who was indeed examined as DW-4 and who produced the documents Ex.D/5 to Ex.D/7. The request as made by the petitioner for leading yet further evidence was, however, declined by the learned Trial Court in view of the directions contained in the remand order and, thereafter, the learned Trial Court proceeded to decide the matter by the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2001. 7. The learned Magistrate framed the following points calling for determination:- " 1- vk;k ,0oh0,e0 laLFkk }kjk esVkMksj [kjhn fd, tkus gsrq fnukad 1-5-1990 dks izLrko ikfjr gqvk rFkk bl laca/k esa vfHk;qDr Hkaojyky eSukfj;k dh enn ls esVkMksj dz; djus gsrq fu.kZ; fy;k x;k\ 2- vk;k vfHk;qDr ds }kjk rFkkdfFkr esVkMksj dz; fd, tkus gsrq le; le; ij ,0oh0,e0 ifCyd Ldwy] mn;iqj dh fizafliy ls dze'k% 10]000@& 10]000@& 20]000@& 20]000@& dqy 60]000@& :0 rFkk fjis;fjax dk;Z djus gsrq le; le; ij vU; jkf'k;kWa izkIr dh xbZ\ 3- vk;k vfHk;qDr us esVkMksj dh dher 60]000@& vnk u dj okLro esa 32]000@& :0 vnk fd, rFkk bl izdkj vfHk;qDr us izkfFkZ;k ih0 jkuh oekZ ls csbZekuhiwoZd vk'k; ls esVkMksj dh okLrfod dher 60]000@& :0 rFkk fjisfjax ds 12032@& crkrs gq, mDr jkf'k izkFkhZ;ksa ls izkIr dj Lo;a dks ykHk izkIr djus gsrq gM+i yh rFkk bl izdkj vfHk;qDr us Ny dkfjr fd;k\ " 8. On point No.1, the learned Magistrate held with reference to the document Ex.P/3 and so also the statements of Dr.Davendra Sareen PW-6 that the petitioner was indeed asked to render assistance in the purchase of matador van for the school. On point No.2, the learned Magistrate held, particularly with reference to the documentary evidence, that the institution paid to the petitioner an amount of Rs.10,000/-, another amount of Rs.10,000/-, further an amount of Rs.20,000/-, and yet further an amount of Rs.20,000/- on different dates in the months of July and October 1990; and it was also found proved with reference to the statements of accounts from the respective banks and the testimony of D.K.Kala PW-7 and Gopal Lal PW-8 that such sums of money were indeed received by the petitioner and deposited in his bank account. 9. 9. On the crucial point No.3, the learned Magistrate held, with reference to the statements of Smt.Prakash Rani Verma PW-1, Saddique Mohammed PW-2, Durga Shanker PW-4 and Hansbhai Patel PW-11 that the vehicle had already been sold by Hansbhai Patel to Saddique Mohammed but then, registration had not been transferred in the name of Saddique Mohammed; that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner from Saddique Mohammed; and that the registration was directly transferred in the name of institution through the petitioner. It was also found proved that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle for Rs.33,000/- only but, in a deceitful manner, obtained an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards the purchase price of the vehicle and about Rs.12,000/- towards repairing. 10. The learned Magistrate also took note of the defence plea of the petitioner with reference to the statements of Krishan Gopal DW-4 that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was advanced as loan by the said witness DW-4 to the petitioner Bhanwar Lal in the year 1989 for the purpose of purchase of the vehicle, that further sums of money, Rs.20,000/- each, were advanced by Prem Paliwal and Ramesh, and that the complainant executed the receipt Ex.D/5 in that regard; and such a story was disbelieved for the decision to purchase the vehicle having itself been taken only on 01.05.1990, for the scribe of the alleged receipt Ex.D/5 having not been produced, for want of cogent connecting evidence, and for those persons, Prem Paliwal and Ramesh, having not made the suggestions in their statements before the Bar Council about the alleged receipt Ex.D/5. 11. It may be pointed out at this juncture that the aforesaid persons, Prem Paliwal and Ramesh, have not been examined in the present trial but then, they were examined as witnesses in a complaint case that was taken up and tried by the Bar Council of Rajasthan for professional misconduct against the petitioner in relation to the dealings in question. The copies of statements of those persons Prem Shanker Paliwal and Ramesh Kumawat in such disciplinary proceedings were, of course, produced in the present trial as Ex.D/6 and Ex.D/7. 12. The copies of statements of those persons Prem Shanker Paliwal and Ramesh Kumawat in such disciplinary proceedings were, of course, produced in the present trial as Ex.D/6 and Ex.D/7. 12. After finding all the essential facts against the petitioner and after dealing with the legal objections, the learned Magistrate found the charge under Section 420 IPC substantiated and, accordingly, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him, as pointed out above; and also directed him to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. 13. In appeal, the petitioner in the first place suggested denial of adequate opportunity of evidence and such a submission was rejected by the Appellate Judge with reference to the record of proceedings. The learned Appellate Judge thereafter dealt with the evidence on record and so also the legal arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner-appellant and endorsed the views of the Trial Court except that of awarding of compensation with reference to the fact that the Bar Council of India had directed the present petitioner to make payment of an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant. 14. Assailing the judgments and orders aforesaid as passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made precise submissions to the effect that in this matter the very fundamental fact, of the petitioner being a party to the deal of purchase of vehicle from Saddique Mohammed has not been established; nor has it been established that the petitioner, with dishonest intention, induced the complainant to part with the money. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Courts below have viewed the case from an erroneous angle and have assumed existence of the fact of the petitioner's participation in the transaction and obtaining money in that regard with dishonest intention. However, according to the learned counsel, such crucial facts and elements being not available on record, the conviction of the petitioner remains fundamentally incorrect and cannot be sustained. However, according to the learned counsel, such crucial facts and elements being not available on record, the conviction of the petitioner remains fundamentally incorrect and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel has particularly referred to the observations of the Appellate Court that the petitioner's involvement in the transaction with Saddique Mohammed was established with proof of the document Ex.P/15 by the witness Saddique Mohammed PW-2 and submitted that such observations remain contrary to the record inasmuch as the basic documents Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16 produced for the purpose of implication of the petitioner have not at all been proved by Saddique Mohammed The learned counsel has also argued that in the present case the complaint was lodged after an inordinate delay and on this count alone, the prosecution story ought to have been disbelieved and the petitioner ought to have been acquitted. Learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions in Jageshwar Singh Rastogi v. State of Madhya Pradesh: 1980 SCC (Cri) 901 , Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P.Sadasivan & Anr.: 2001 Cr.L.R. [SC] 217 , The State of Rajasthan v. Bajranglal & Ors.: 1982 WLN (UC) 319 and Khetpal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan: 2003 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1046. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor has duly supported the judgments and orders impugned. 16. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, this Court is unable to find any material illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order impugned so as to warrant interference in this revision petition. 17. The argument that the documents Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16 have not been proved and, thus, the basic fact of connectivity of the petitioner with the transaction of purchase of vehicle remains missing, though appears attractive prima facie, cannot be accepted in the face of other direct as well as circumstantial evidence available on record, which unfailingly shows that the petitioner had been privy to the transaction of purchase of vehicle for the said institution; and that the vehicle was indeed purchased from Saddique Mohammed for Rs.33,000/-; and further that the petitioner did receive Rs.60,000/- towards the price of the said vehicle from the institution. 18. 18. True it is that the observations as made by the learned Appellate Judge in the impugned judgment about Saddique Mohammed having proved the document Ex.P/15 is not correct, and true it is that Saddique Mohammed has not referred to the documents Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16 in his statements but this aspect itself cannot be treated conclusive of the matter from any stand point. 19. The fact that the petitioner was the Legal Adviser and part of the management of the aforesaid institution is hardly of any doubt. From the minutes dated 01.05.1990 (Ex.P/3) as drawn in the presence of the petitioner, it is also clear that the school decided to buy a second-hand matador van with the help of the petitioner. The statements of Smt.Prakash Rani Verma PW-1 are not of any ambiguity or shortcomings. She has clearly referred to the aforesaid minutes and then has pointed out that the petitioner took her to Debari and showed the matador. The fact that the petitioner was directly a party to the transaction of purchase of the vehicle for the school has clearly been established from the statement of PW-1. 20. That the petitioner got this deal made through and from Saddique Mohammed is also established from the testimony of Saddique Mohammed PW-2. Even the witness Yakub Mohammed PW-3, who chose otherwise not to support the prosecution case, nevertheless corroborated the fact that the petitioner was indeed in the process of purchasing the vehicle for the school and for that purpose he introduced the petitioner to Saddique Mohammed. This so-called hostile witness has stated in his examination-in-chief thus: " djhc 4&5 lky igys gkftj vnkyr eqyfte Hkaojyky us eq>s Ldwy ds fy, ,d xkM+h [kjhnus ds fy, dgk Fkk eSaus xkM+h ekfyd lnhd tks nsox<+ dk jgus okyk Fkk mlls eqyfte Hkaojyky dks feyok fn;k FkkA " 21. This so-called hostile witness has stated in his examination-in-chief thus: " djhc 4&5 lky igys gkftj vnkyr eqyfte Hkaojyky us eq>s Ldwy ds fy, ,d xkM+h [kjhnus ds fy, dgk Fkk eSaus xkM+h ekfyd lnhd tks nsox<+ dk jgus okyk Fkk mlls eqyfte Hkaojyky dks feyok fn;k FkkA " 21. True it is that the vehicle in question was standing registered in the name of Hansbhai PW-11 and Saddique Mohammed was not its registered owner and the registration of the vehicle was also allegedly transferred from Hansbhai to school directly but then, a comprehensive look at the statements of the witnesses makes it clear that Hansbhai has specifically pointed out his having already sold the vehicle to Saddique Mohammed; and Saddique Mohammed has also testified to the same fact and further to the fact that he sold the vehicle at the instance of the petitioner. 22. The fact that the petitioner was all through a party for purchase of the said matador van for the school is unfailingly established from the evidence showing direct payment to the petitioner towards such matador van, and so also from the voucher Ex.P/7 dated 26.09.1990 whereby he was specifically paid an amount of Rs.900/- ''For Baroda Trip for Matador Transfer RTO''. In the face of such clinching evidence available on record, the suggestion that the petitioner's involvement in the dealing has not been established, cannot be accepted. 23. The documentary evidence on record, particularly the payment vouchers, clearly show that the petitioner was indeed paid the amount by the school specifically for the purpose of purchase of the vehicle. 24. Though during the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being the Legal Adviser of the institution concerned could have been paid the amount by the institution towards several other transactions/dues and it is not necessary that he had received the amount towards the transaction in question,however, such submissions cannot be accepted in view of the contents of the documents, a few of which could be usefully referred herein. 25. The voucher Ex.P/4 regarding payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner through cheque No.873829, and said to have been signed by the petitioner, stated the purpose of making payment thus: "Advance to negotiate the purchase of standard 20 A Van for school purpose. Paid vide A/c payee cheque No.873829'' 26. 25. The voucher Ex.P/4 regarding payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner through cheque No.873829, and said to have been signed by the petitioner, stated the purpose of making payment thus: "Advance to negotiate the purchase of standard 20 A Van for school purpose. Paid vide A/c payee cheque No.873829'' 26. Similarly, the voucher dated 23.07.1990, Ex.P/5, shows another amount of Rs.10,000/- having been paid to the petitioner through cheque No.771222 as being the advance for purchase of matador. Further, a sum of Rs.6,053/- is shown to have been paid through the petitioner under voucher Ex.P/6 dated 08.08.1990 towards repair of matador and tyres by cheque No.771221. Yet further, an amount of Rs.1,600/- is said to have been paid to the petitioner under voucher dated 08.10.1990 Ex.P/8 for matador parts through cheque No.771228. An amount of Rs.20,000/- is shown to have been paid to the petitioner as the so-called final payment of matador by account payee cheque No.771225 under the voucher Ex.P/9. 27. The facts are clear from the vouchers aforesaid and so also from the other documentary evidence including the copies of cheques and the bank statements and the testimony of the witnesses that the petitioner did receive an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the institution towards the van in question and further an amount of about Rs.12,000/- towards other expenses for the said vehicle. 28. The fact that the vehicle in question was indeed available with Saddique Mohammed and then, Saddique Mohammed sold it for the purpose of institution at the instance of the petitioner at the price of Rs.33,000/- is categorically established from the testimony of the witness Saddique Mohammed PW-2 and after examining his statement, this Court is unable to find any error or illegality on the part of the learned Courts below in having relied upon him as a truthful witness. This Court finds no illegality in appreciation of the testimony of complainant Smt.P.Rani Verma PW-1 either that has been accepted as correct particularly when all the basic and essential facts get their corroboration from the material on record. As already noticed, even the hostile witness Yakub Mohammed PW-3 has stood testimony to the fact that indeed the petitioner approached him for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle for the school and for that purpose did he introduce him to Saddique Mohammed. As already noticed, even the hostile witness Yakub Mohammed PW-3 has stood testimony to the fact that indeed the petitioner approached him for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle for the school and for that purpose did he introduce him to Saddique Mohammed. With the established chain of facts and circumstances, of the vehicle belonging to Hansbhai PW-11 having already been sold to Saddique Mohammed, and the petitioner having contacted Saddique Mohammed for the purpose of purchase of vehicle for the school, and having purchased the same, the suggestion of the petitioner's non-involvement in the deal was required to be and has rightly been rejected. 29. So far the question of price of the vehicle as paid to Saddique Mohammed is concerned, this Court finds the circumstances that on one hand, the petitioner has chosen to deny his involvement in the transaction in question and such a denial has been found to be absolutely incorrect and the petitioner is found to have been paid the money by the institution for the purpose of purchase of vehicle and, on the other hand, Saddique Mohammed has testified to the effect that he received Rs.32,000/- from the petitioner and Rs.1,000/- remained due that were paid by Smt.P.Rani Verma PW-1 upon their meeting and that they i.e., Smt.P.Rani Verma and Saddique Mohammed, did not meet earlier. 30. This Court finds no reason to discard the testimony of Saddique Mohammed PW-2 merely because he has not referred to the documents Ex.P/15 and P/16 nor finds any reason to discard the testimony of Smt.P.Rani Verma PW-1 for her having relied upon the said documents Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16. Irrespective of such documents, the fact of the vehicle having been purchased for Rs.33,000/- stands established on record and the petitioner having been paid by the institution Rs.60,000/- towards such vehicle having also been established, the onus shifted heavily towards the petitioner to explain, if at all he had any explanation. Not only that the petitioner has miserably failed to do so but the suggestions as made by the petitioner in this matter are rather self-defeating. 31. During the course of submissions, while examining the record, the learned counsel for the petitioner was posed the question about the nature of defence taken by the petitioner in this case. Not only that the petitioner has miserably failed to do so but the suggestions as made by the petitioner in this matter are rather self-defeating. 31. During the course of submissions, while examining the record, the learned counsel for the petitioner was posed the question about the nature of defence taken by the petitioner in this case. Learned counsel has strenuously argued that the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs and is required to substantiate the charge by cogent and direct evidence and cannot rely upon the weakness, if any, of any proposition in defence; and the prosecution having failed to establish its case, something incompatible in defence, if any, cannot be of any help to the prosecution. 32. True it is that the prosecution is required to substantiate the charge by leading positive and cogent evidence but as noticed, when the direct and circumstantial evidence does make out the case of the petitioner's direct involvement in the deal and his having received excessive amount towards the price of the vehicle and having failed to account for the same and rather, having received such amount with misrepresentation indicating towards the element of deceit, it was for the petitioner to explain and the flaws in, and incorrectness of, the explanation as put forward by the accused-petitioner cannot be ignored altogether. Noteworthy it is that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as recorded by the Magistrate, the petitioner chose to state his version in the following terms:- " ih0 jkuh oekZ us LVs.MMZ 20 xkM+h ,oa esVkMksj xkM+h buds ekfydksa ls [kqn us [kjhnh] eSaus muls dksbZ lkSnk ugha fd;k] u xkM+h [kjhnh csph gSA eq>s >wBk Qalk;k gSA " 33. The matter has not ended with bare denial by the petitioner. As noticed above, this matter was earlier decided by the learned Magistrate on 17.02.1999 but then, the petitioner sought another opportunity of leading further evidence, particularly of examining the witness Krishan Gopal Soni. The learned Appellate Court afforded him such opportunity and hence set aside the judgment and order against him and remanded the matter. The petitioner indeed produced the said witness Krishan Gopal Soni as DW-4; and after examining the statement of DW-4 and so also the documents produced by him, particularly the document Ex.D/5, this Court is left with no doubt that the petitioner has come forward with untruthful suggestions through such witness. 34. The petitioner indeed produced the said witness Krishan Gopal Soni as DW-4; and after examining the statement of DW-4 and so also the documents produced by him, particularly the document Ex.D/5, this Court is left with no doubt that the petitioner has come forward with untruthful suggestions through such witness. 34. The said witness DW-4 suggested that at the instance of the petitioner Bhanwarlal he paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the month of October 1989 for the purpose of purchase of matador and then, Rs.20,000/- were paid by Premji Paliwal and another Rs.20,000/- were paid by Rameshji Kumawat and the document in that regard was produced as Ex.D/5. The document Ex.D/5 purportedly states that the school had already received the amount of Rs.50,000/- from Krishan Gopal Soni, Rameshji Kumawat and Premji Paliwal through the petitioner Bhanwarlal Menaria and for repayment thereof, the aforesaid cheques Nos.873829, 771224, 771225 were issued; and therein, the petitioner also suggested that he had arranged for such advance for the institution and he would be responsible for payment. This receipt is apparently a madeup document and has rightly not been relied upon and discarded by the learned subordinate Courts with justified observations that such single receipt could not have been drawn in relation to three persons and could not have been in the possession of the witness Krishan Gopal Soni DW-4. The said receipt refers to the cheques regarding which it has already been noticed that the same were paid to the petitioner towards purchase of the vehicle. The suggestion of anybody advancing the amount in the month of October 1989 for the vehicle is even otherwise contradicted from the fact that the decision for purchase of the vehicle was taken only in the month of May 1990. Moreover, the said document was definitely required to be discarded when the same was not put to the witness Smt.P.Rani Verma PW-1 in her cross examination. 35. Once it is found that the petitioner came out with a false denial on his role in the transaction and then produced the false evidence standing contrary to his denial itself, this Court finds it justified that his defence was rejected and the prosecution case was accepted. 36. 35. Once it is found that the petitioner came out with a false denial on his role in the transaction and then produced the false evidence standing contrary to his denial itself, this Court finds it justified that his defence was rejected and the prosecution case was accepted. 36. Taking a comprehensive view of the evidence available on record, this Court has no hesitation in affirming the findings that the petitioner has been a privy to the transaction in question and did receive an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards the price of matador van that was purchased only for Rs.33,000/-, of which the petitioner paid only Rs.32,000/- 37. The decision as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Jageshwar Singh Rastogi's case (supra), where the element of deceit was sought to be suggested with reference to the price paid for an article in comparison to its market price, being fundamentally different on the essential elements, does not support the case of the petitioner. The decision in Alpic Finance Ltd. (supra) being that of entirely different fact situation and relating to the intention of the person who entered into a contract and accepted pecuniary advantage involving the transaction and then, failed to pay his debt, in the opinion of this Court, does not co-relate with the present petitioner nor helps the case of the petitioner at all. 38. So far the aspect of delay in lodging the complaint is concerned, this Court finds such suggestion too weak and remote in the present case; and even if some delay had been there in this matter, looking to the relationship of the parties where the petitioner was the Legal Adviser of the institution, said to be a school, and the school had not directly dealt with the matter of purchase of vehicle, such delay is hardly of any significance or relevance. 39. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the findings of the learned Courts below so as to warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 40. After this much of dictation, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a fervent appeal for reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner particularly looking to the age of the case and the other proceedings that the petitioner has already faced and is facing. 40. After this much of dictation, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a fervent appeal for reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner particularly looking to the age of the case and the other proceedings that the petitioner has already faced and is facing. In the overall circumstances of the case, this Court finds it just and proper to reduce the sentence as awarded to the petitioner to that of 1 (one) year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) and further simple imprisonment of 1 (one) month in default of payment of fine. 41. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. While conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC is maintained, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period of 1 (one) year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand); and the petitioner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month in default of payment of fine. The petitioner is on bail. He shall surrender to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.Revision dismissed. *******