Conviction upheld, but sentence reduced to period undergone considering age, first-offender status, and prolonged trial.

The petitioner was accused of inducing complainants Gurmukh Singh and Gurnet Singh to pay him ₹90,000 each on the assurance that he would send them to Malaysia and arrange permanent work permits for three years. The complainants paid the amounts on 22.03.2002 and 23.03.2002, respectively, and travelled to Malaysia on 30.03.2002. They were unable to obtain the promised work permits and returned to India on 30.07.2002. The petitioner allegedly refused to refund their money and threatened them when they sought repayment.

Following a preliminary police inquiry, FIR No. 88 dated 07.06.2003 was registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The petitioner was ultimately charged under Section 420 IPC, convicted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 11.08.2010.

In revision, the petitioner challenged the conviction on the grounds that a subsequent police inquiry had found him innocent, that an FIR had been registered concerning the alleged disappearance of that inquiry report, that the prosecution arose from family enmity, and that payment of ₹1,80,000 had not been satisfactorily proved.

During the revision proceedings, the State produced a custody certificate showing that the petitioner had undergone four months and eight days, including remission, and had no other pending criminal case.

The Court applied Section 420 IPC, which criminalises cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property.

In exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, the Court relied on Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, holding that revisional interference is narrow and is justified only for a patent defect, error of jurisdiction, illegality, or perversity; the revisional court is not to function as a second appellate court.

It also relied on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, which recognises interference where there is palpable error, non-compliance with law, a wholly erroneous decision, or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion.

The Court further relied on Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, holding that multiple police inquiries should not ordinarily be conducted after an inquiry has already been held, except with appropriate authority or judicial/statutory direction.

For sentencing, the Court applied the reformative principle recognised in Satish v. State of U.P., particularly that first-time offenders should, where circumstances justify, be afforded an opportunity for reformation.

The Court found that the complainants’ central grievance was not that they had failed to travel to Malaysia, but that the petitioner had promised work permits which were never arranged.

The petitioner did not dispute that the complainants had travelled to Malaysia and returned after approximately four months; the absence of the promised work permits therefore supported the prosecution version.

The complainants gave direct evidence regarding payment of ₹90,000 each, supported by witnesses present at the time of payment and by the evidence of the police officer who conducted the original inquiry.

The alleged later inquiry was not proved through the examination of DSP(D) Lakhbir Singh, and there was no material showing that it had been authorised by the competent authority. Moreover, the subsequent FIR concerning the alleged disappearance of the report did not establish the petitioner’s innocence, and its ultimate fate remained unexplained.

The alleged enmity was not shown to be direct between the petitioner and the complainants, and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner had neither been produced during trial nor properly placed on the revision record.

Since both courts below had concurrently appreciated the evidence and no patent illegality or perversity was demonstrated, the conviction did not warrant revisional interference.

However, considering the petitioner’s age of approximately 80 years, first-offender status, prolonged pendency since 2003, absence of bail misuse, and custody already undergone, the Court considered reduction of sentence appropriate.

However, the sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, namely approximately four months and eight days including remission.

The fine of ₹2,000 was maintained, and the petitioner’s deposit of the fine was noted.

The revision petition was accordingly disposed of, along with any pending applications.