Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yashpal & Others vs State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CRR No.790 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM 16066 of 2012 in/and
CRR No.790 of 2012
Date of decision:23.7.2012
Yashpal & others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate,
for the applicants-petitioners.
Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.
The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgments of conviction and order of sentence, thereby convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
Briefly put, the facts of the case, necessary for disposing of the short issue involved in the instant petition, are that FIR No.15 dated 1.4.2011 under Sections 406, 408, 409 and 120 IPC and Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, on the basis of a complaint made by District Manager, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. After conclusion of the investigation, challan against the petitioners was CRR No.790 of 2012 2 presented before the learned court of competent jurisdiction. Having found a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, charge was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
With a view to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen prosecution witnesses and also brought on record the documentary evidence.
After closing the evidence by the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. In defence, the accused produced their evidence.
The learned trial Court after going through the evidence led by both the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners were guilty for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and they were convicted accordingly, vide judgment of conviction dated 12.9.2009. Consequently, vide order of sentence dated 12.9.2009, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and with fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 406 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each.
Feeling aggrieved with the above-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners filed their appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. The appeal of the petitioners was decided vide impugned judgment dated 5.3.2012. The conviction of the petitioners was upheld. However, their sentence was reduced from the imprisonment of one year to nine CRR No.790 of 2012 3 months qua each of the petitioners.
Dissatisfied with the above-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition. That is how, this Court has seized of the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submitted that he does not intend to press this petition regarding conviction of the petitioners. Instead, he prayed that since the petitioners have already faced the agony of criminal trial for the last 11 years and they have already undergone their substantive sentence of seven months and two days including remission of two months and fifteen days, this Court may consider the case of the petitioners only qua quantum of sentence.
Notice of motion was issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, while highlighting the mitigating circumstances, submits that the petitioners are the aged persons and they are suffering from the age related ailments. He has placed on record the medical record in the form of Annexures P-1 and P-2, in this regard. He submits that the petitioners have already faced the agony of criminal trial for the last eleven years. Besides this, the petitioners have already undergone more than half of the actual sentence. He submits that if the remission period is included, the petitioners have already undergone sentence for more than seven months. Learned counsel for the petitioners concluded by submitting that in view of the mitigating circumstances, the sentence of the petitioners may be reduced to the period already CRR No.790 of 2012 4 undergone.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that there was hardly any mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioners and they do not deserve any leniency in the quantum of sentence. He prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is just and expedient to reduce the sentence of the petitioners to the period already undergone by them. I say so for more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter.
The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan v. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another" and "Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana, 1981 AIR (SC) 1723.
The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Soundarajan v. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another (Supra)" are as under:-
"26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during pendency CRR No.790 of 2012 5 of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment."
In "Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/ petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents. 2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith.
3.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, firstly, the petitioners have already faced the agony of criminal trial for the last eleven years.
CRR No.790 of 2012 6
Secondly, as per the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, the petitioners stand convicted to undergo imprisonment for a period of nine months. In terms of the custody certificates by way of separate affidavits dated 18.7.2012 of Amarjit Singh Sandhu, Deputy Superintendent (Officiating Superintendent), Central Jail, Ferozepur, Yashpal- petitioner No.1 has undergone the actual sentence for four months and seventeen days as on 18.7.2012. After including the remission earned, he has undergone the sentence for seven months and two days. Roshan Lal-petitioner No.2 has undergone, as per custody certificate, actual sentence for five months and eight days as on 18.7.2012. When the remission period earned by him is added, he has already undergone the sentence for seven months and twenty three days out of the total awarded sentence of nine months. Likewise, Vijay Kumar, petitioner No.3 has undergone the actual sentence for five months and one day as on 18.7.2012. After the remission period earned by him is included, he has undergone the sentence of seven months and sixteen days out of the total awarded sentence of nine months.
Thirdly, a careful perusal of the medical record appended at Annexures P-1 and P-2 would show that the petitioners Vijay Kumar and Yashpal are suffering from aged related ailments.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the petitiones, owing to the above-said mitigating circumstances in their favour, deserve leniency for CRR No.790 of 2012 7 reduction in sentence. Thus, while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, the revision petition is dismissed. However, their sentence is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Resultantly, with the above-said modification, the instant criminal revision petition stands disposed of.
23.7.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE