S. Talapatra DECISION
S. Talapatra, J.
1. The petitioner being the convict has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.01.2015 delivered in case No. PRC 616 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura by means of this revision petition, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur by his judgment and order dated 16.03.2016 in Criminal Appeal 05(1)/2015.
2. The prosecution against the petitioner had been initiated on the basis of a complaint [Exbt. 1] filed by one Rangalal Sutradhar stating that he had given Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner on 17.09.2010 being induced that the said money would be invested in UNIPAY 2 U, a non-banking financial company in presence of witnesses. Again, the said complainant gave a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner in order to deposit in UNIPAY 2 U, the said non-banking financial company, in the name of his wife, Smt. Beauty Sutradhar. The said money was paid to the petitioner according to the complainant in presence of the witnesses. Again on 30.12.2020, the complainant gave another sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner to deposit the same in the name of his wife in presence of the witnesses. Lastly, on 13.02.2011, the complainant gave another sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner to deposit the same in UNIPAY 2 U, the said non-financial banking company to be deposited in the name of his daughter namely Padma Sutradhar. In the same manner, the complainant had made investment of Rs. 1,20,000/- through the petitioner to UNIPAY 2 U, the said non-banking financial company. Later on, the complainant came to know 'from the office of the UNIPAY 2 U', the said non-banking financial company that the petitioner did not invest the said amount, even though he had received the amount from the complainant. Being defrauded thus, the said complaint was filed by Rangalal Sutradhar.
3. Based on the said complaint, made to the Officer-in-Charge, Kakraban P.S. Case No. 157/2011 under Section 420 of the IPC was registered on 21.09.2011. On completion of the investigation the final police report was filed sending up the petitioner to face the trial under Section 420 of the IPC. When the charge was framed for committing offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC on taking cognizance, the petitioner had denied the charge and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. It would be apparent from the records that the prosecution adduced as many as 9 (nine) witnesses and some documentary evidence [Exbt. 1-Exbt. 3]. On recording the prosecution, evidence the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., when the petitioner reiterated his plea of innocence. No evidence has been led by the petitioner in his defence. Thus, on appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution by the judgment dated 03.01.2015 the petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 of the IPC having observed as under:
"In this case, on consideration of the prosecution evidences as a whole one thing is clear that the accused with dishonest intention taken money from the complainant on various dates for depositing the same but failed to deposit the same and committed cheating. In this case, it is also proved by all the prosecution witnesses by giving cogent and corrobo........