PADMENDRA SINGH ASWAL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010154892025

2026:UHC:8068
Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


UKHC010154892025
CRLR/649/2025

Padmendra Singh Aswal …….. Revisionist

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand ……. Respondent
With
CRLR/650/2025
CRLR/651/2025

CRLR/652/2025

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mukul Dangi, learned legal aid
counsel for the revisionist.
2. Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan,
learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Vikash
Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Present criminal revisions have been
preferred against the judgment and orders
dated 21.07.2025, 21.07.2025, 01.08.2025
and 21.07.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District
Pauri Garhwal, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 32
of 2025, 31 of 2025, 36 of 2025 and 33 of
2025, arising out of Criminal Case Nos.
2139 of 2023, 2975 of 2023, 1238 of 2023
and 2922 of 2023, respectively. By the
aforesaid appellate judgments, the learned
Appellate Court has affirmed the judgments
and orders dated 30.04.2025, 26.04.2025,
21.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
whereby the revisionist has been convicted

UKHC010154892025

2026:UHC:8068
for the offences punishable under Sections
420 and 406 IPC; Section 420 IPC; Sections
420 and 423 IPC; and Sections 420 and 406
IPC, respectively, and has been sentenced
accordingly.
4. Since all the aforesaid criminal
revisions arise out of substantially similar
facts and involve common questions of law
and the same revisionist, they are being
heard and decided together by this common
judgment.
5. Learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing
for the revisionist would submit that the
respective F.I.Rs. were lodged by different
complainants at Police Station Kotwali
Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, alleging
fraud in respect of different parcels of land
situated within the area of Kotdwar. He
would further submit that the revisionist
was arrested in connection with the
aforesaid cases and has remained in
custody thereafter. It is contended that the
alleged transactions relating to purchase
and sale of the lands in question are stated
to have taken place during the years 2020
and 2021, whereas the respective F.I.Rs.
came to be lodged only in the year 2023,
after considerable delay, for which no
satisfactory explanation has been furnished
by the prosecution.
6. Learned Legal Aid Counsel would
further submit that the judgments rendered
by the learned Trial Court as well as the
learned Appellate Court suffer from
illegality, impropriety and incorrectness;
that, the courts below have failed to properly
appreciate the evidence on record and have
overlooked material contradictions
appearing in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. It is argued that the

UKHC010154892025

2026:UHC:8068
conviction has been recorded on the basis of
assumptions and presumptions without
proper appreciation of the evidence, and
that the findings returned by the courts
below are arbitrary and unsustainable in
law. He would further submit that the
revisionist is innocent and has falsely been
implicated with a mala fide and oblique
motive. Accordingly, it is submitted that
interference in revisional jurisdiction is
warranted.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel
would vehemently oppose the submissions
advanced on behalf of the revisionist and
submit that there are concurrent findings of
fact recorded by both the courts below,
which do not warrant interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless
there is manifest illegality, perversity or
miscarriage of justice. Learned State
Counsel would further submit that the
prosecution case, as unfolded from the
F.I.Rs. and the evidence adduced before the
learned Trial Court, is that the revisionist
entered into agreements/ Memoranda of
Understanding with the respective
complainants in respect of land situated in
Tehsil Kotdwar of which the revisionist was
not the recorded tenure holder, however, he
received the sale consideration, wholly or
partly, but failed to execute the sale deeds in
favour of the complainants.
8. He would further submit that despite
receiving the agreed consideration, the
revisionist neither got the sale deeds
executed nor refunded the amounts received
by him, thereby dishonestly inducing the
complainants to part with their money and
causing wrongful loss to them. It is further
submitted that after registration of the

UKHC010154892025

2026:UHC:8068
respective F.I.Rs., the police conducted
investigation and, upon finding sufficient
material, submitted charge-sheets against
the revisionist for the offences alleged; that,
the learned Trial Court thereafter framed the
charges and afforded adequate opportunity
to the revisionist to defend himself; that, the
prosecution examined the witnesses and
also placed documentary evidence on record,
including the agreements/Memoranda of
Understanding and relevant bank
statements, to establish the payment of the
sale consideration to the revisionist.
9. Learned State Counsel would further
submit that after the prosecution evidence
was concluded, the revisionist was afforded
an opportunity to lead defence evidence;
however, he declined to adduce any defence
evidence; that, upon a proper appreciation
of the oral and documentary evidence, the
learned Trial Court recorded a finding that
the revisionist had received amounts from
the complainants, partly in cash and partly
through banking channels, including
RTGS/cheques, but thereafter failed to
execute the sale deeds or refund the
amounts so received; that, the learned
Appellate Court, upon independent
consideration of the material available on
record, has affirmed the findings and
sentence recorded by the learned Trial
Court, therefore, no interference is
warranted in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
11. The principal contention of the
revisionist is that the prosecution has failed
to establish the requisite dishonest or

UKHC010154892025

2026:UHC:8068
fraudulent intention and that the courts
below have failed to properly appreciate the
evidence, however, from the material
available on record, it is not in dispute that
the revisionist entered into
agreements/Memoranda of Understanding
with the complainants in respect of the
lands in question and received substantial
amounts towards the proposed sale
consideration.
12. It is also borne out from the record that
the revisionist received the amounts from
the complainants through different modes,
including cash, cheques and RTGS/banking
transactions. The receipt of the said
amounts by the revisionist is, therefore, not
seriously disputed. The evidence further
establishes that revisionist did not get the
sale deeds execute in favour of the
complainants despite receipt of the
consideration as the revisionist has not the
recorded tenure holder of the said land, and
also did not refund the amounts received by
him.
13. At this stage, it is relevant to bear in
mind that the jurisdiction of this Court in
revision is limited. The revisional Court is
not ordinarily required to re-appreciate the
evidence merely because another view is
possible, particularly where the findings
recorded by the courts below are concurrent
and are based upon proper appreciation of
the evidence. The interference is warranted
only where the findings suffer from manifest
illegality, perversity, gross miscarriage of
justice or material irregularity.
14. In the present case, upon consideration
of the judgments rendered by the learned
Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court,
this Court finds that the findings recorded

UKHC010154892025

2026:UHC:8068
by the courts below are based upon the oral
as well as documentary evidence available
on record. The learned Trial Court has duly
considered the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, including the statements of the
witnesses and the documentary evidence
relating to the transactions and payments,
and the learned Appellate Court has
thereafter independently examined the
matter and affirmed the findings of
conviction. There is no material illegality,
perversity, impropriety or jurisdictional error
has been demonstrated in the concurrent
findings recorded by the courts below. The
submissions advanced on behalf of the
revisionist essentially seek re-appreciation of
the evidence, which, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, is not
warranted in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction.
15. Consequently, this Court finds no
sufficient ground to interfere with the
impugned judgments and orders passed by
the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the
learned Appellate Court.
16. Accordingly, all the present criminal
revisions are dismissed.
17. No order as to costs.

MAMTA
RANI




(Alok Mahra, J.)
08-09-2026
Mamta


Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430
ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e6891
1ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.09.10 18:02:21 +05'30'