Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suraj Bhan vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Revn No. 2389 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revn No. 2389 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.09.2012
Suraj Bhan ......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RITU BAHRI , J.
Challenge is to the judgment dated 07.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Patiala whereby he upheld the judgment/order dated 28.07.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala.
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 28.07.2009 as under:-
Period of Sentence 420/467/471/120-B IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment substantially Crl. Revn No. 2389 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Patiala, vide order dated 07.07.2012. Hence, the present revision petition.
Brief facts of the case are that Prem Kumar moved a complaint to DIG Patiala with the allegation that the accused was practicing as doctor by establishing a clinic in the name of Gupta Clinic. The complainant is running a Karyaan shop at the same place and it was mentioned in the complaint that earlier also he along with other shopkeepers have moved many applications but no action was taken. It was alleged that the accused-Suraj Bhan is serving as a Malaria worker in the Government department being posted at Kauli. The Gupta clinic was being run on the basis of licence No. 45220 issued in the name of Saroj Rani daughter of Suraj Bhan. It is alleged that on the verification this license was found to be fake. The enquiry was made by Health department and it was found that no such license could be issued to Saroj Rani who was merely 12 years of age when the said course regarding which the licnse is issued as stated to have been joined by her. It was also alleged that earlier one Relu Ram died on account of giving wrong injection to him by the accused-Suraj Bhan. Based on these allegations, the complaint was forwarded to SSP, Crl. Revn No. 2389 of 2012 (O&M) -3- Patiala who deputed Superintendent of Police, Patiala for proper investigation and ensuring the proper action. Hence the present complaint At the time of presentation of the challan, the trial Court supplied the copy of challan and documents attached to the accused. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the charges u/s 120-B/420/467 and 471 IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial Prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W8 and thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was closed.
Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and entire incriminating evidence appearing against them were put to him, who denied the same and pleaded his false implication. In defence, the accused placed on record some documents in the shape of certified copies of some judgment and statements in other litigation as Ex. DA to DS.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction on merits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, further contends that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1999 and a period of 12 years have already gone by. Petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spinning over a period of more than one decade. Petitioner has already undergone the sentence for 01 month and 22 days , as per custody certificate dated 29.08.2012 Crl. Revn No. 2389 of 2012 (O&M) -4- given today by the learned State counsel. No other case is pending against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer for the grant of Probation to the petitioner under the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner has not committed any offence for the last 11 years. The petitioner has already deposited the fine.
Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420/467/471/120-B IPC is upheld but the sentence of the imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone and a direction is given that the petitioner be released to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Patiala. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 75,000/- before the trial Court. The trial Court is further directed to release this amount to the complainant.
With the above modification/direction, the present petition stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 03.09.2012 G.Arora