Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of Haryana on 27 November, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl.Revn. No. 2920 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Revn. No. 2920 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.11.2012
Surjit Singh ......Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. D.S. Adalakha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.
****
RITU BAHRI , J.
This criminal revision is directed against judgment dated 07.09.2012 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was partly accepted and conviction under Section 406 IPC was set aside whereas conviction under Section 420 IPC was upheld.
The petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The case bearing FIR No. 113 dated 21.05.2005 had been registered against five persons, namely, Surjit Singh-appellant, Amarjit Singh, Ashok Kumar, Sukhdev and Ranjit Singh on the basis of written complaint made by the complainant Gurmej Singh on the allegations that Surjit Crl.Revn. No. 2920 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Singh and co-accused Amarjit Singh had opened a company under the name and style of Gateway Private Limited, which had employed several persons belonging to Harijan community to do field work. On representation made by the accused that if a sum of ` 10,400/- was to be deposited and three more members were to be sponsored and after sponsoring three more members in the company, the first person would be given a Honda CD Dawn motorcycle. The motorcycle would be given after expiry from the date of deposit of the aforesaid amount. The complainant gave ` 10,400/- to the petitioner Surjit Singh on 05.12.2005 . However, he could not introduce three members. On a demand made by the complainant for Motorcycle, the matter was deferred. The complainant came to know that several persons had been duped of their money in the similar manner by the accused. Accordingly, the case under Section 420 and 406 IPC was registered.
After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented for an offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was closed.
Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and entire incriminating evidence appearing against him was put to him, who denied the same and pleaded his false implication. However, the accused has led no evidence in his Crl.Revn. No. 2920 of 2012 (O&M) -3- defence.
On appeal, lower Appellate Court set aside the conviction under Section 406 IPC, however, maintained the conviction under Section 420 IPC for a period of one year.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction but prays that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. As per custody certificate dated 29.10.2012, the petitioner has already undergone 02 months and 06 days and as of date he has undergone three months. After one year of conviction, the FIR was registered on 21.05.2005 and the petitioner has been facing criminal trial for the last 07 years.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that since the conviction is not liable to be interfered with as no leniency is shown to the petitioner and he should undergo the entire sentence as ordered by both the Courts below.
The judgment passed by both the Courts below do not require any interference and they are upheld. However, a lenient view is taken on the quantum of sentence of the petitioner.
Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner has suffered the agony of protracted trial for almost 07 years. It is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable Crl.Revn. No. 2920 of 2012 (O&M) -4- to be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC is upheld and a direction is given that the petitioner be released on probation for a period of one year to the satisfaction of CJM/ Duty Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari.
The petitioner shall deposit ` 15,000/- has fine before the trial Court, which shall be paid to the complainant.
With the above modification/direction, the present petition stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE November 27, 2012 Atul