Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1723 (PNJ)

Daler Singh Mehndi v. State of Punjab

2022-09-15

GURVINDER SINGH GILL

body2022
JUDGMENT CRM-24897-2022 1. The application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. CRM-34610-2022 2. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the amended memo of parties annexed with the application is taken on record. CRM-34612-2022 3. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record as Annexures P-6 to P-31 subject to all just exceptions. CRR-1489-2022 (Main Case) 4. The petitioner assails judgment dated 14.7.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby his appeal challenging his conviction as recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, has been dismissed. 5. The allegations, in nutshell, are that the complainant Bakhshish Singh lodged an FIR alleging therein that Shamsher Singh, Daler Singh Mehndi, Tejinder Singh @ Laddi, Harchand Singh and Surinder Singh had duped him of an amount of Rs.12 lakhs on the pretext of sending him to 'Canada' along with the musical troupe of Daler Singh Mehndi. However, neither the complainant was sent abroad nor the amount of Rs. 12 lakhs was returned to him. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and that in fact the evidence of the prosecution itself absolutely demolishes the case of the prosecution qua the petitioner. It has been submitted that call-details record/tower location record in respect of mobile phone of petitioner clearly shows that he was never present in Patiala during the relevant period. It has been submitted that even the visit of complainant to Delhi on 12.8.2003 to hand over an amount of Rs.1 lakh to petitioner, which is the only transaction, alleged with petitioner, was not found to be substantiated. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by Mr. Lakhanpal, Advocate and Mr. Gurpreet Bhaseen, Advocate representing the complainant has submitted that it is a case where the complainant has fully supported the case of prosecution and has stated absolutely in tune with the allegations as levelled in the FIR. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by Mr. Lakhanpal, Advocate and Mr. Gurpreet Bhaseen, Advocate representing the complainant has submitted that it is a case where the complainant has fully supported the case of prosecution and has stated absolutely in tune with the allegations as levelled in the FIR. The learned counsel representing the complainant has submitted that the contention of the petitioner to the effect that there is evidence to belie the case of the complainant regarding payment of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner in Delhi on 12.8.2003 cannot be accepted inasmuch as the prosecution had moved application for discharge of the petitioner before the Trial Court twice on same ground, but the same were not accepted by the Trial Court, necessarily indicating that the said evidence was not found to be trustworthy. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 9. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant to the effect that dismissal of the discharge applications would mean that the said evidence referred to in discharge applications is not to be considered, this Court is unable to accept the said contention for the reason that the discharge applications were moved at a stage, when the trial against the petitioner had not commenced, whereas during trial it is the entire evidence produced during the proceedings of trial, which has to be considered to assess the value of such evidence. 10. The testimony of the Investigating Officer PW-30 i.e. Amarjit Singh Ghuman SP(D) Moga, who had investigated the case rather suggests some facts contrary to case of prosecution. Some of the relevant extracts from his cross-examination are reproduced hereinunder:- '......The entire aforesaid investigation team was present most of the time when interrogation of accused Daler Singh Mehndi was conducted in this case. To investigate the allegation of complainant party with regard to alleged telephonic conversation with accused Daler Singh Mehndi and also to verify the location of accused Daler Singh Mehndi at the relevant time. I had taken the record of telephone connection of accued Daler Singh Mehndi of his call details and tower locations. To investigate the allegation of complainant party with regard to alleged telephonic conversation with accused Daler Singh Mehndi and also to verify the location of accused Daler Singh Mehndi at the relevant time. I had taken the record of telephone connection of accued Daler Singh Mehndi of his call details and tower locations. On verification of call details and tower locations of accused Daler Singh Mehndi he was not prove to has been visited, Patiala and other places at the dates of the allegations and it has also been proved that no telephone conversation has taken place between accused Daler Singh Mehndi and the complainant party. I have not seen the record of call details and tower locations during my examination in chief. I have in order to investigate the alleged financial transaction I had taken in possession the bank record of financial transactions. As per bank records, I found that accused Daler Singh Mehndi used to receive his financial transactions either by drafts or by cheques. On investigation, I found that there was no entry of any amount on the alleged dates given by the complainant party. xxx xxx xxx xxx It has come in investigation that at the residence and at the office of accused Daler Singh Mehndi there was a private security personals deputed of group for security agency. The said group of Security Agency was providing Security Services to big offices and embassies and consulates. Teh said Security Agency used to maintain a register at each premises for recording entries of visitors in those premises. Similarly such registers were maintained by the said agency in the office and residence of accused Daler Singh Mehndi. I had examined the said visitors registers maintained by the said agency at the office and at the residence of accused Daler Singh Mehndi after taking them in police possession through Seizure memo and I found that there was no entry of visit of any of the member of the complainant party in the said register of their alleged visit as claimed by the complainant party. It has also come in investigation that the record collected from the office of accused Shamsher Singh, there was no reference of accused Daler Singh Mehndi in the said record.......' 11. The aforesaid cross-examination would indicate that from the call-details/tower location record, the presence of petitioner is not established in Patiala on the relevant dates. It has also come in investigation that the record collected from the office of accused Shamsher Singh, there was no reference of accused Daler Singh Mehndi in the said record.......' 11. The aforesaid cross-examination would indicate that from the call-details/tower location record, the presence of petitioner is not established in Patiala on the relevant dates. Further, it is evident that a Private Security Agency had been employed for providing security at the house of the petitioner in Delhi, which was duly maintaining the record of visitors. The police, during investigation had collected the said record and which did not show the visit of the complainant on 12.8.2003, when the complainant allegedly went to Delhi for making payment of Rs.1 lakh to petitioner. The aforesaid statement of the Investigating Officer himself certainly would show that the entire evidence needs to be examined thoroughly and that there are certain arguable points in the petition. 12. The revision petition, as such, is admitted. CRM-24899-2022 13. Custody certificate of the applicant/petitioner has been filed by learned State counsel today in Court, which is taken on record. 14. As per the custody certificate, the applicant/petitioner has been behind bars for a period of 2 months and 4 days. He is not stated to be involved in any other case. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind the fact that the revision petition in its normal course is not likely to be taken up for final arguments in immediate future, the application is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/petitioner shall remain suspended during pendency of the revision petition, subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.