Punjab-Haryana High Court
Najir Ahmed vs State Of Haryana on 4 September, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRR No.1304 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.1304 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 4.9.2012
Najir Ahmed ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG Haryana for the respondent.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The crux of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the disposal of the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, petitioner Najir Ahmed son of Nathu Khan was a salesman, whereas his co-convict Ramphal was Ex-Secretary of Bai Cooperative Credit and Services Society Limited (for brevity "the society"). The members had obtained the loans from the society. The petitioner and his co-convict received the actual amount of the instalments of loan from the loanees, but deposited the less amount in their accounts and issued the receipts to them in this respect.
2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner and his co- convict have mis-appropriated the impugned amount of the loanees and did not deposit the entire amount in the account of the society. In the CRR No.1304 of 2012 (O&M) -2- background of these allegations, a criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.233 dated 12.8.2003, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Nuh, District Mewat in the manner depicted here-in-above.
3. Having completed all the codal formalities and in the wake of trial, the petitioner and his co-convict were convicted & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, to pay a fine of ` 500/- each or in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the commission of offence punishable u/s 409 IPC. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each, to pay a fine of ` 500/- each or in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each u/ss 467 & 468 IPC each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each under section 120-B IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court, vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.3.2011 and order of sentence dated 30.3.2011.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both the convicts filed the separate appeals. The appeal filed by Ramphal was accepted. He was acquitted of the charges framed against him, whereas, the conviction of petitioner Najir Ahmed u/s 409 IPC was altered u/s 406 IPC and he was convicted & sentenced with the same awarded sentence by the appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 29.3.2012.
CRR No.1304 of 2012 (O&M) -3-
5. Petitioner Najir Ahmed still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr.PC.
6. During the course of preliminary hearing, the learned counsel did not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction of the petitioner and addressed arguments only with regard to the quantum of sentence. Consequently a Coordinate Bench of this court (Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.) passed the following order on 3.5.2012:-
"At the outset, it may be relevant to mention that counsel for the petitioner has addressed the arguments only with regard to quantum of sentence and has submitted that the petitioner is facing trial for the last more than 8 years and has also undergone imprisonment for a period of more than three months during the trial and one month after conviction out of the total period of one year of sentence. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, his sentence be reduced.
Notice of motion qua quantum of sentence only for 5.7.2012."
7. As is evident from the record that the petitioner-convict was convicted & sentenced u/s 406 IPC in the manner indicated here-in- above. The alleged misappropriation of the amount is of the year 2000 (12 years ago). The present case was registered against him on 12.8.2003. He has suffered the agony of protracted trial, appeal and revision for the last more than nine years. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner- convict has already undergone 8 months & 4 days of his substantive sentence of imprisonment, out of maximum sentence of imprisonment of one year awarded to him by the Courts below. He is an old person of 65 years of age. He has old aged parents, small kids and other family members to maintain. He is not a previous convict.
CRR No.1304 of 2012 (O&M) -4-
8. Therefore, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, oozing from the record, as described here-in-above, to my mind, it will be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed on the petitioner, is reduced to the period of 8 months & 4 days, already undergone by him.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed on merits. The impugned judgments of conviction are hereby maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned order of sentence is accordingly modified to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in-before.
10. Needless to mention that necessary consequence will naturally follow accordingly.
4.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge