Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1090 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ravi Dutt

2016-06-17

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 5U of 2007 dated 14.7.2008, affirming the judgment of acquittal dated 20.7.2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, HP, in Case No. 23-1-2003/27-II-2003. 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that complainant namely Gupteshwar Singh filed complaint Ext.PW16/A, with the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, which was further referred to police. Perusal of Ext.PW16/A suggests that in July, 2001, Manager Kids Buds Senior Secondary School (in Short School) Bijhar, District Hamirpur, H.P., got advertisement published in the newspaper namely Divya Himachal, wherein candidates were invited/advised to contact for admission in M.Sc. course. Complainant with a view to get admission of his daughter contacted Manager of aforesaid School, whereby he was advised to bring original certificates along with Rs. 30,000/-. As per version of complainant, he paid Rs. 30,000/- to one Shri Anil Kumar, who told him that as and when admission is done, he would be informed. Complainant also handed over the testimonials to Shri Anil Kumar, who had informed him that Ravi Dutt petitioner-accused is out of station. Since petitioner-accused failed to get the admission of the daughter of the complainant done in terms of advertisement, complainant lodged FIR Ext.16/B specifically alleging therein that accused neither got the admission done nor he returned the amount of Rs. 30,000/- paid by the complainant for admission of his daughter. Police on the basis of FIR investigated the matter and took into custody newspaper cuttings of the advertisement as Ext.PW-1/B, two receipts Ext.PW-4/A and Ext.PW-2/A vide memo Ext.PW-7/C, one letter from the office of Divya Himachal Ext.PW-17/A. Record also suggests that police also filed application in the Court of learned ACJM Barsar for getting signatures of accused Ext.PW18/B. Besides above, police also moved an application to State Forensic Science Laboratory Ext.PW-15/G along with hand writing specimen and signatures Ext.PW-15/A to Ext.PW-15/C for examination of documents and procured report Ext.PW-15/D to Ext.PW-15/F. After completion of investigation, police found petitioner-accused guilty of offence having committed under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, presented the same in the competent court of law. Police also submitted Supplementary Challan in the case on 19.3.2003. 3. Police also submitted Supplementary Challan in the case on 19.3.2003. 3. Learned trial Court after satisfying itself that prima facie case exists against the petitioner-accused, charged him for committing offences under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Learned trial Court also recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC., wherein, he denied all allegations and claimed that he is being falsely implicated. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence available on record, came to conclusion that prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the petitioner-accused and, as such, acquitted him of the offences framed against him. 5. Petitioner-accused being aggrieved with the judgment of learned trial Court dated 20.7.2007, filed appeal under Section 378 of Cr.PC before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, who also vide judgment dated 14.7.2008 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal learned trial Court. Hence this appeal. 6. At this stage, it may be pointed out that initially petitioner-accused had filed criminal appeal under Section 378 of Cr.PC against the impugned judgment before this Court, however, this Court, keeping in view the fact that State had already exhausted right of appeal before the learned first appellate Court, vide order dated 10.11.2008, converted the same into criminal revision petition, which later on came to be registered as criminal revision petition No. 198 of 2008. 7. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the petitioner-accused vehemently argued that impugned judgment is not based upon the correct appreciation of the material evidence available on record and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. He contended that both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and judgments are based on hypothetical reasons, conjectures and surmises and as such same cannot be allowed to be sustained. He also forcefully contended that court below while discarding the evidence of prosecution has set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence because bare perusal of the reasoning given by the courts below suggests that same is unreasonable, unsustainable and is not based on correction appreciation of the record available on record. He also forcefully contended that court below while discarding the evidence of prosecution has set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence because bare perusal of the reasoning given by the courts below suggests that same is unreasonable, unsustainable and is not based on correction appreciation of the record available on record. He also while advancing his arguments before this Court invited attention to the statements given by various prosecution witnesses to demonstrate that learned court below has discarded the cogent and trustworthy testimonies of prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons. He also invited attention of this Court to the statements given by PWs 1 to 9, who as per him, clearly stated that accused had taken the money from them in order to secure admission in various course, which was later on not got done even by taking money from them. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that statement of all prosecution witnesses suggests that all of them made payment to the accused for securing admission in terms of the advertisement and, as such, finding returned by the court below that there is no evidence on record to connect the accused in the case that money was actually received by him, is totally contrary to the facts as well as material available on record. Eventually, he prayed that impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set-aside and accused is liable to be held guilty and convicted for having committed offences. 8. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the respondent supported the judgments of courts below and argued that no interference, whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case, especially, when there are concurrent findings of the courts below. He contended that this Court has very limited powers as far as re-appreciation of the evidence, especially, when both the courts below have meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. During arguments, he made this Court to travel through the statements made by the prosecution witnesses to demonstrate the discrepancies, contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements given by the prosecution witnesses. During arguments, he made this Court to travel through the statements made by the prosecution witnesses to demonstrate the discrepancies, contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements given by the prosecution witnesses. He also contended that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, rather, evidence be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by the prosecution itself suggests that there were no sufficient grounds/material on record to prove the guilt of the accused. He prayed that judgments of courts below deserve to be upheld. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record. 10. True, it is that this Court has very limited powers under Section 397 Cr.PC while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction but in the instant case, where accused has been acquitted of the offences, it would be apt and in the interest of justice to critically examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by learned courts below are not perverse and same are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. 11. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality or sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order.” 12. In the present case, where the complainant has specifically alleged that in term of advertisement, he paid an amount of Rs. 30,000/- along with original certificates of his daughter for getting admission in M.Sc. course, prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. 13. PW1, Gupteshwar Singh, stated that in terms of advertisement in the newspaper Divya Himachal, he contacted Manager of the school at Bijhar on telephone No. 83375 and 83383 for admission of his daughter. He further stated that since he wanted to get the admission of his daughter namely Sunita in M.Sc. Course, on enquiring, person namely Anil Kumar advised him to bring certificates of his daughter along with Rs. 30,000/-. It has also come in his statement that amount in question along with documents were deposited by him with one Mr. Anil Kumar. He also stated in examination-in-chief that at the time of handing over certificate as well as amount, Anil Kumar informed him that accused-Ravi Dutt has gone out of station with some party, as and when he comes back, admission would be done. He also stated in his examination-in-chief that no receipt, whatsoever, was issued to him in lieu of money paid by him. In his statement, he stated that when he went back to get the money and testimonials of his daughter, Anil Kumar and Ravi Dutt were not there and another person returned the certificates and informed that money would be returned by Anil Kumar or Ravi Dutt. He also proved the application Ext.PW1, which he had allegedly written to Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, against the accused Ravi Dutt. He also proved the application Ext.PW1, which he had allegedly written to Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, against the accused Ravi Dutt. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was told that Anil Kumar is the Manager, who was admittedly not made party by the police in the present case. 14. PW2, Shri Kashmir Singh, also stated that after reading advertisement in the news paper, he contacted the school for admission of his daughter Manjna Kumari. He also stated that he made payment to the Assistant of Ravi Dutt on 28.10.2001. He also stated that wife of Ravi Dutt was also there and Assistant handed over a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to the wife of Ravi Dutt, however, in his cross-examination, he submitted that on 12th January, 8 girls and 6 parents along with Ravi Dutt and Kartar Singh went to Dehradun where Ravi Dutt made them to stay in Dharamshala. He further admitted in his cross-examination that on the basis of address mentioned in identity card, they went to the Principal of the college and enquired about the admission of their children. They were informed that examinations are going on. He further stated that when he came back to Barsar, they along with Ravi Dutt and Kartar Singh went to Police Station Barsar, who asked Ravi Dutt regarding the admission and names of the persons and amount paid by them. He also admitted that SHO asked Ravi Dutt to return the money, who assured that half of the money would be returned in the morning. He also admitted that Ravi Dutt returned half of the amount in the morning and ensured that remaining would be paid within eight days. Similarly, PW3 Jitender Kumar deposed that he also contacted the school on the basis of advertisement for getting admission in B.Ed. course. It has also come in his statement that he was asked to bring Rs. 80,000/- but ultimately, accused Ravi Dutt agreed to get his admission for Rs. 60,000/- He further stated that on 14th October, he paid Rs. 25,000 to Ravi Dutt and Rs. 10,000 on October, 27. As per his statement, accused assured him for admission at Meerut. He also stated in his cross-examination that Ravi Dutt gave him his mobile number, but thereafter, he went to school in January, where he was told that they don’t know about Ravi Dutt, however, his documents were returned. 15. 25,000 to Ravi Dutt and Rs. 10,000 on October, 27. As per his statement, accused assured him for admission at Meerut. He also stated in his cross-examination that Ravi Dutt gave him his mobile number, but thereafter, he went to school in January, where he was told that they don’t know about Ravi Dutt, however, his documents were returned. 15. PW4, Kanshi Ram, also stated that Ravi Dutt got one advertisement published in news paper. Since he wanted to get his daughter admitted in M.Sc. Course, he contacted Ravi Dutt at Bijhar, who advised him to bring Rs. 30,000/-. He further stated that on 27th July, he went to Bijhar when accused Ravi Dutt was present in office along with two persons, one Kashmir Singh from Hamirpur and one Kashmir Singh from Nadaun. He also stated that he deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000 with Ravi Dutt, who told him that he will be telephonically informed qua the admission. He further stated that on 11th October, 2007, accused told him on telephone that they have to go to Dehradun for admission. It has also come in the statement that six girls and six persons accompanied Ravi Dutt in a vehicle to Dehradun, where Ravi Dutt made them stay in a Dharamshala. 16. PW5 Kashmir Singh, has stated that on the basis of the advertisement in the month of July, 2001, he contacted Principal of the school Bijhar, for getting admission of his daughter in M.Sc. course. Ravi Dutt demanded Rs. 30,000 and certificates of the candidate. He stated that he along with Kanshi Ram and Kashmir Singh went to the Bijhar and deposited Rs. 30,000/- with Ravi Dutt along with documents. He further stated that after one month, accused Ravi Dutt informed that admission has been got done but thereafter, they kept on contacting Ravi Dutt, but every time, they were informed that they will be informed when the admissions are done. 17. PW6 Hemawati, PW7 Arun Mahajan, PW8 Mohan Lal, PW9 Sanjeev Kaundal, also stated in their statements that on the basis of advertisement in question, they paid sums of Rs. 40,000/-, 20,000/-, 15,000/- and 30,000/- respectively to the accused for getting admissions of their children done in the various courses but they all stated that despite paying money, no admission has been got done by the accused. 18. 40,000/-, 20,000/-, 15,000/- and 30,000/- respectively to the accused for getting admissions of their children done in the various courses but they all stated that despite paying money, no admission has been got done by the accused. 18. PW10 Satish Kumar stated that he remained posted as TGT teacher of Science and maths in Kids Buds School, Bijhar. He stated that he knew accused Ravi Dutt, who used to meet him in Barsar, however, record suggests that this witness was declared hostile. In his cross-examination conducted by learned PP, he categorically denied the suggestion that he knew that accused- Ravi Dutt was Manager of the School. 19. PW11 Ravinder Chandel, the correspondent of Divya Himachal stated that accused Ravi Dutt had contacted them for publishing of the advertisement. 20. PW12 Anil Kumar stated that he remained posted as TGT teacher in the School, from 2000 to 2002 and accused Ravi Dutt has not done any transaction in his presence with anyone. This witness was also declared hostile. Even in his cross-examination, no material could be extracted by the defence, which could be of any help to the case of the prosecution. 21. PWs13 and 14 Parvesh Kumar and Raman Kaishtha, also stated in their examination-in-chief that they contacted the school on the basis of advertisement and thereafter, they went to school where accused Ravi Dutt and Anil Kumar met them. Accused assured them of admission in M.Sc. (Chemistry) for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- each. They stated that Rs. 30,000/- each were deposited with the accused and, thereafter, they were informed by the accused that admission has been done and given identity card Ext.PW13/A, which was later on found fake/duplicate. 22. PW.15 Visheshwar Sharma, Scientific Officer in State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, also admitted that one sealed parcel was received in the Laboratory on 28.11.2002, wherein original documents i.e. admitted hand writing and signatures of the accused Ex.t.PW7/A, Ext.PW7/B and Ext.PW15/A to Ext.PW15/C specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused were also received. He also stated that on examination using scientific technique, report Ext.PW15/D, bearing his signatures and official stamp was handed over to the police. He also stated that case was also examined by Assistant Director Ms. Meenakshi Mahajan, who countersigned the report along with her official stamp. This prosecution witness also proved Ext.PW15/E i.e. reasons for opinion. He also stated that on examination using scientific technique, report Ext.PW15/D, bearing his signatures and official stamp was handed over to the police. He also stated that case was also examined by Assistant Director Ms. Meenakshi Mahajan, who countersigned the report along with her official stamp. This prosecution witness also proved Ext.PW15/E i.e. reasons for opinion. In his cross-examination, he admitted that writing Ext.PW7/A and Ext.PW7/8, Ext.PW15/A and Ext.P15/B appears to be relative in age. He admitted in cross-examination that with the passage of time, some variations in habit of writing may occur, however, in cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion that relative age of the writing is similar and there can be variation of opinion from expert to expert. 23. PW16. Inspector Madan Lal deposed before the learned trial Court that FIR Ext.PW16/B was registered on the basis of complaint No. 226. He also stated that accused Ravi Dutt had taken Rs. 30,000/- from a girl from his relations for admission in M.Sc. course but no admission was got done in the said course. He also stated in examination-in-chief that he repeatedly had a telephonic talk with the accused regarding the aforesaid fact. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that he has not brought all these facts on record during the course of the investigation. 24. PW17 Shri Ashok Katoch, Editor of Divya Himachal newspaper stated that record qua the advertisement is weeded out after every one year. He also proved letter Ext.PW17/A issued from their office. 25. PW18. ASI Rajinder Pal, who was the Investigating Officer and during investigation, he had taken into custody two receipts, Ext.PW7/A and Ext.PW7/B vide memo Ext.PW7/C. He also stated that specimen signatures and writing of the accused, Ext.PW15/A to PW15/C were taken by him before the Court. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no proof was found that accused was employee of the said school. In his cross-examination, he also admitted that he had taken into possession the record from the school but not attached with the challan. He also admitted the suggestion put to him in the cross-examination that he did not cite the magistrate from whom, he had procured the specimen signatures of the accused, as a witness in the case. 26. In his cross-examination, he also admitted that he had taken into possession the record from the school but not attached with the challan. He also admitted the suggestion put to him in the cross-examination that he did not cite the magistrate from whom, he had procured the specimen signatures of the accused, as a witness in the case. 26. Careful perusal of the depositions made by complainant PW1 depicts that on the basis of advertisement, he contacted the school at Bijhar telephonically for admission of his daughter Sunita in M.Sc. Course. As per his statement one Anil Kumar asked him to bring certificates of his daughter along with amount of Rs. 30,000/-, which he deposited along with documents with one Anil Kumar. PW1 nowhere in his statement stated that he had actually handed over the documents as well as amount to accused Ravi Dutt, rather, he categorically stated that he handed over amount along with documents to one Anil Kumar, who has been admittedly not made accused/party in the present case. It has also come in the statement of PW1 that when he again went back to the aforesaid school, to get back the money as well as certificates, Anil Kumar and Ravi Dutt did not meet him and another person returned certificates, who told him that money would be returned by Anil Kumar and Ravi Dutt. Thereafter He lodged complaint, which was ultimately registered as FIR Ext.16/B. Careful reading of the deposition made by the complainant nowhere suggests that actually, he was ever able to see accused Ravi Dutt in person. In his statement, it has come that on both the occasions, when he visited the School, accused Ravi Dutt was not present. As per his statement, he had handed over the amount of Rs. 30,000/- along with certificates to one Shri Anil Kumar, who has been not admittedly made accused in the present case for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Hence, in the absence of specific proof that money ultimately travelled to Ravi Dutt from Anil Kumar, version put forth by the prosecution that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the accused Ravi Dutt for admission cannot be accepted on its face value. 27. In the present case, admittedly, complaint was lodged against the accused that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the accused Ravi Dutt for admission cannot be accepted on its face value. 27. In the present case, admittedly, complaint was lodged against the accused that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was taken by accused Ravi Dutt for admission of his daughter but ultimately, admission was not got done. Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined PW2 Kashmir Singh, PW3 Jitender Kumar, PW4 Kanshi Ram, PW5 Kashmir Singh, PW6 Hemawati, PW7 Arun Mahajan, PW8 Mohan Lal, PW9 Sanjeev Kaundal, PW13 Parvesh Kumar and PW14 Raman Kaistha, to substantiate that so many people in terms of the advertisement, paid money as well as deposited certificates to accused Ravi Dutt. But, this Court while hearing the parties as well as examining the record had an occasion to peruse the statements of each and every PW, as referred above. Careful perusal of the depositions made by aforesaid witnesses nowhere supported the version of the PW1 where he stated that he had paid amount of Rs. 30,000 to the accused Ravi Dutt, rather, these witnesses, as referred above, have narrated their own instances, where they in terms of advertisement, contacted the petitioner-accused and paid some amount for admission of their children for courses, but admittedly these witnesses, nowhere substantiated the claim put forth by the PW1-complainat, in the present case that he had actually paid amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the accused Ravi Dutt for admission of his daughter. Since in the present case, where the police on the basis of specific complaint filed by the PW1 registered the case against the accused, witnesses cited by prosecution were expected to support the case of the complainant-PW1 by stating that amount of Rs. 30,000 along with original certificates was deposited by PW1 in their presence with accused Ravi Dutt but in the present case, all these prosecution witnesses have not supported the statement given by PW1, rather, they have stated their own tales indicating therein that money was taken by accused Ravi Dutt for admission in course by taking money. Interestingly, in the present case, all PWs, as referred above, have nowhere reported the matter to the police and, as such, no case whatsoever was registered against the accused Ravi Dutt on their specific complaint. Interestingly, in the present case, all PWs, as referred above, have nowhere reported the matter to the police and, as such, no case whatsoever was registered against the accused Ravi Dutt on their specific complaint. However, perusal of statement given by PW2 suggests that 8 girls and 6 parents along with Ravi Dutt and Kartar Singh had gone to Dehradun for admission and, subsequently, they along with accused Ravi Dutt met SHO Barsar, who asked Ravi Dutt to return the amount taken by him. PW2 also stated that Ravi Dutt returned half of the payment and assured them to return the remaining within eight days. But fact remains that PW2, who as per his statement, had an occasion to meet Ravi Dutt and visit Dehradun along with him never lodged any complaint against the accused. Hence, in the absence of specific statement that PW1 had actually made payment to the accused in their presence, version put forth by these PWs, as referred above, cannot be of any help to the prosecution. Interestingly, in the present case, where PW1 specifically stated that money was paid to Anil Kumar, police for the reasons best known to it, has not arrayed Anil Kumar as Accused in the present case, who as per the version of PW1 received money on behalf of accused Ravi Dutt. Had police arrayed aforesaid Anil Kumar as accused and investigated the matter, perhaps, it would have been discovered whether money actually travelled to the accused, Ravi Dutt or not? Hence, in the absence of some specific proof, it cannot be assumed/believed that money actually paid by complaint travelled to the accused Ravi Dutt. 28. Moreover, in the present case, PW10 and 12, employees of school categorically denied that accused Ravi Dutt in some manner was associated with school. Though, these aforesaid witnesses were declared hostile but in their cross-examination they have specifically denied that Ravi Dutt was the Manager of the school. In the present case, as per statement of PW18 ASI Rajinder Pal, no proof, whatsoever, could be found to connect the accused with the school. PW18 in his statement admitted that no connection was found of the accused that he was employee of the school. He also admitted in cross-examination that though, he had taken record from the school but same was not attached with the challan. PW18 in his statement admitted that no connection was found of the accused that he was employee of the school. He also admitted in cross-examination that though, he had taken record from the school but same was not attached with the challan. Hence, it can be safely inferred that police had no record, whatsoever, to connect accused Ravi Dutt with the school, who allegedly got the advertisement published in the news paper. Similarly, PW17 also stated in cross-examination that record pertaining to advertisement is weeded out after one year and as such, advertisement, if any, got issued by the accused on behalf of the school, has not been proved by the prosecution. Moreover, PW15 who proved the opinion Ext.PW15/C stated that Ext.PW7/A and Ext.PW7/B appears to be relative in age. He admitted the suggestion put to him in cross-examination that relative age of the writing is similar and there is a possibility of variation of opinion from expert to expert. Moreover, prosecution has not examined learned Magistrate in whose presence, signatures were obtained for sending it to the Forensic Scientific Laboratory for examination. Interestingly, in the present case, PW16 Madan Lal admitted that complaint was received by him, which was converted into FIR vide Ext. PW16/B. He in his statement stated that accused had taken Rs. 30,000/- from girl from his relations for admission in course but later on, admission was not got done in terms of the promise made to her. He admitted that thereafter, he had a telephonic talk with the accused on several occasion, but in cross-examination, he admitted that he had not brought all facts on record during the courts of investigation. Hence, in the absence of specific complaint in this regard made by PWs, their version cannot be of any help to prosecution to prove the instant case. 29. Careful perusal of the record suggests that in the instant case, case was registered by the police on the basis of compliant lodged by PW1, which was ultimately converted into FIR. Close scrutiny of the FIR nowhere suggests that any other instances, as have been put forth by the prosecution witnesses, were made basis of the FIR. Rather, FIR in question was specifically lodged on the specific allegation of the complainant, where he reported that he had paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the accused Ravi Dutt. Close scrutiny of the FIR nowhere suggests that any other instances, as have been put forth by the prosecution witnesses, were made basis of the FIR. Rather, FIR in question was specifically lodged on the specific allegation of the complainant, where he reported that he had paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the accused Ravi Dutt. Since case at hand was registered on the basis of specific complaint, accused cannot be held guilty of having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the statement of witnesses that they had also made payment to the accused for admission of their children in the various courses. In the extant case, prosecution was expected to lead specific evidence on record to demonstrate that complainant had made the payment of Rs. 30,000/- for admission of his daughter but as appears from record, none of the witnesses have supported the specific case, which ultimately culminated into criminal proceedings that money was paid by the complaint to accused- Ravi Dutt. 30. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as critical analysis of the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Save and except statement of PW1, no prosecution witness has stated that complainant PW1 had made payment of Rs. 30,000/- to the Ravi Dutt. Rather, instead of proving the case, all the prosecution witnesses narrated their own instances of making payment to the accused on the basis of advertisement got published in the news paper but fact remains that all these witnesses never lodged the complaint to the police and as such their statements cannot be of any help to the prosecution to prove that PW1 paid amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the accused on the basis of the advertisement. Moreover, prosecution has also failed to prove on record that advertisement was actually got published by accused Ravi Dutt in the news paper and he actually received the money from PW1 for admission of his daughter. In the present case where there is a specific statement of PW1 that he had paid amount of Rs. Moreover, prosecution has also failed to prove on record that advertisement was actually got published by accused Ravi Dutt in the news paper and he actually received the money from PW1 for admission of his daughter. In the present case where there is a specific statement of PW1 that he had paid amount of Rs. 30,000/- to one Shri Anil Kumar, prosecution has not led any evidence on record to prove that Anil Kumar received money on behalf of the accused Ravi Dutt, which later on travelled to him. 31. Consequently, this Court sees no reason whatsoever, to interference with the judgments of acquittal passed by the courts below, which appear to be based on correct appreciation of the material evidence available on record. Hence the petition stands dismissed.