Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balkar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 11 February, 2016
Author: Jaspal Singh
Bench: Jaspal Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.: 218
Criminal Revision No.2487 of 2015 (O & M)
Date of Decision: February 11, 2016
Balkar Singh
..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... RESPONDENT
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH
...
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
...
PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
. . .
Jaspal Singh, J Crl. Misc. No.21561 of 2015 For reasons given in the application, delay of 149 days in filing the petition is condoned.
Application is allowed.
Crl. Revision No.2487 of 2015
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by Balkar Singh against judgment dated November 13, 2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby judgment of conviction dated January AVIN KUMAR 2016.02.18 15:40 Crl. Revision No.2487 of 2015 [2] 29, 2013 and order of sentence dated January 30, 2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal, in case FIR No.135 dated April 29, 2006, under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 191, 192, 120-B IPC, Police Station, Pundri, has been upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under-
Section Sentence Fine Default
406 IPC RI for two years ` 300 SI for two months
420 IPC RI for three years ` 300 SI for three months
467 IPC RI for three years ` 300 SI for three months
468 IPC RI for two years ` 300 SI for two months
471 IPC RI for two years ` 300 SI for two months
2. As per the prosecution case, on April 29, 2006, a complaint written by Mr. P.C. Bansal, Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Kaithal was received in Police Station, Pundri, alleging that accused approached the complainant - Bank with application dated May 16, 2005 for grant of KCC limit of ` 4 lac and claimed that he is owner of agriculture land measuring 95 kanals 2 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Fatehpur, District Kaithal vide jamabandi for the year 2000-01. The complainant asked the accused to get prepared his legal scrutiny report from panel Advocate which was prepared by Mr. C.S. Gupta, Advocate, on the basis of documents and affidavit submitted by the accused. On May 24, 2005, accused also executed a mortgage deed in favour of the bank, which was registered on May 24, 2005 vide registration No.2021 dated May 24, 2005, registered with the office of Sub Registrar, Pundri. Accused also submitted a letter signed by the concerned Halqa Patwari regarding marking of lien in favour of bank regarding the loan amount of ` 4 lac against his alleged property AVIN KUMAR 2016.02.18 15:40 Crl. Revision No.2487 of 2015 [3] in the revenue record on May 24, 2005. In consideration of execution and registration of the mortgage deed of aforesaid agricultural land as security towards loan amount and also execution of other loan documents in favour of the bank by the accused, complainant sanctioned KCC limit of ` 4 lac in favour of accused for the purpose of crop loan. The part of KCC limit of ` 3 lac was disbursed on May 28, 2005 and remaining balance of ` 1 lac was disbursed on May 30, 2005. On April 6, 2006, complainant received an anonymous telephonic call informing that accused Balkar has fraudulently availed the loan as he did not own the land. The bank verified the details of land holding from the office of Halqa Patwari and came to know that the land record produced in the bank was fake and forged. SMD was also verified from the office of Sub Registrar, Pundri and it was found that fake registration No.2021 dated May 24, 2005 had been printed and even signatures of Sub Registrar, Pundri were denied by the office of Sub Registrar. The officials of complainant - Bank contacted the accused to repay the entire loan amount with interest i.e. ` 4.39 lac due towards him but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence of cheating, forgery, breach of trust and criminal conspiracy.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR in question was registered. Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court of jurisdictional Magistrate. He was supplied the copies of police report AVIN KUMAR 2016.02.18 15:40 Crl. Revision No.2487 of 2015 [4] and other documents appended therewith as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., free of costs.
4. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses.
6. Incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who denied the same and pleaded innocence. No DW was examined in defence.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, accused was held guilty under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Accordingly, he was convicted & sentenced, as detailed above.
8. Appeal preferred by Amit Rana also failed before the lower appellate court. In this backdrop of facts, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the accused - petitioner.
9. At the time of issuing notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer only to the quantum of sentence. Hence, notice was issued on the limited question of sentence vide order dated November 27, 2015. This Court has also scrutinized the impugned judgments as well as the relevant documents/ evidence and is of the considered view that there is no scope for any interference in impugned judgment(s) as far as the conviction of the petitioner under AVIN KUMAR 2016.02.18 15:40 Crl. Revision No.2487 of 2015 [5] the aforesaid provisions of IPC is concerned. As such, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld.
10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a first offender. No other case of similar nature is either pending against the petitioner. He is the only bread winner in the family. He never misused the concession of bail during trial. He has already undergone a period of more than 1 year and 7 months, out of the substantive sentence of three years. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone.
11. This Court has given an anxious thought to the submissions made by learned counsel and have gone through the record available on file.
12. As per the custody certificate dated February 11, 2016, by now, the petitioner has already undergone more than 1 year 7 months and 11 days, out of total sentence of three years.
13. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Harjit Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 695 had reduced the sentence of 7 years under Section 25 of the Arms act as already undergone (more than 5 years). To the same effect is the judgment in case Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2009(1) AICLR 243, whereby this Court had reduced the sentence of petitioner to already undergone, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has three children - there is no one to look after his family - petitioner has already AVIN KUMAR 2016.02.18 15:40 Crl. Revision No.2487 of 2015 [6] undergone sentence of more than 5 months out of total sentence of one year. In cases Jagdeep Singh @ Neetu v. State of Punjab, 2013(2) Law Herald 1849; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, Sudhir v. State of Haryana, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 336; and Chhotu Ram v. State of Haryana, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 630, similar view has been adopted.
14. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, though, conviction of the petitioner is upheld but the sentence imposed upon him under the aforesaid provisions of Indian Penal Code is reduced to the period already undergone by him with no change in fine clause. The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith.
15. With the above modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.
Crl. Misc. No.21562 & 21563 of 2015 In view of the aforesaid judgment rendered in the main case itself, applications seeking suspension of sentence and for stay of recovery of fine, have rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such.
(Jaspal Singh)
February 11, 2016 Judge
avin
AVIN KUMAR
2016.02.18 15:40