Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bagga Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 April, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
Criminal Revision No.417 of 2004 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr.R.No.417 of 2004 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 11.4.2013
Bagga Singh PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Punjab RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Premjit S.Hundal, A.A.G. Punjab.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner in this petition impugns the judgment dated 13.9.2001 of the learned Additional C.J.M., Kapurthala vide which he was convicted under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to further undergo RI for two months. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide his judgment dated 17.1.2004.
According to the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. which was recorded on the basis of the statement of complainant Ajit Singh, it was given out that the petitioner had assured the complainant that his son would be sent abroad if Criminal Revision No.417 of 2004 -2- he paid Rs.1 lac which was done. Since the son of the petitioner was never sent abroad and neither the amount returned, the complainant raised this issue and eventually in the presence of the respectables, a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 24.2.1997 whereby the petitioner agreed to return the amount and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by him, whereas the remaining amount was to be paid by 24.6.1997. The petitioner defaulted in making this payment leading to the registration of the F.I.R. and the consequential proceedings against him resulting in the conviction and sentence as mentioned above.
The compromise is on record as Ex.PA. A perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner had agreed to return the amount of Rs.1 lac and according to his own showing even before this Court, the amount of Rs.50,000/- had been paid by him to the complainant. If that be so, the compromise required the petitioner to return a sum of Rs.1 lac. It is thus evident that the petitioner admitted the allegations as set out in the F.I.R.
In this view of the matter when the compromise is not denied and rather partially acted upon, the petitioner cannot escape the consequences and the guilt established by virtue of the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. could not have been registered beyond the period of limitation. The F.I.R. was registered on 6.8.1998 and the amount was given by the complainant in the year 1992. Ordinarily, this Court would have evaluated this contention by testing this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but if the facts of the case are to be seen, then it is evident that in 1997, the petitioner candidly admitted to return the amount of Rs.1 lac when he entered into a compromise. This compromise was partially acted upon by him which by implication would suggest the acceptance of the allegations which have been made by the complainant. Resiling from the compromise and not returning the amount of Rs.50,000/- would thus be a cause of Criminal Revision No.417 of 2004 -3- grievance to the complainant arising at that point of time when the petitioner eventually failed to honour the compromise. It is thus evident that the petitioner never intended to honour what he stated.
Consequently, the instant revision petition is held without to be any merit and is dismissed as such. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been facing the criminal prosecution for the last 15 years and that atleast half of the amount has been returned by him to the complainant and he thus prays that a lenient view be taken qua the sentence of the petitioner, more particularly so when he has already undergone 3 months 16 days of actual sentence out of the total sentence of 1-1/2 years awarded to him.
Having regard to the aforesaid when the petitioner has already undergone 3 months 16 days of actual sentence out of the total sentence of 1-1/2 years awarded to him and also the fact that he is facing the criminal prosecution for the last 15 years and also noticing the fact that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him again into custody at this stage more particularly when the petitioner would now be well advanced in years and well retrenched in life, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the extent already undergone by him, provided he deposits the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 3 months from today before the learned trial Court for onward disbursement of the same to the complainant. In case the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated period as stated above, the petitioner would be required to undergo the remaining part of his sentence and the revision would automatically stand dismissed.
Revision stands disposed of.
(MAHESH GROVER)
April 11, 2013 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
Criminal Revision No.417 of 2004 -4-