Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahesh Chand Singhla vs State Of Haryana on 29 August, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRR No.1936 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.1936 of 2012
Date of Decision:-29.8.2012
Mahesh Chand Singhla ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Ms.Bindu Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sameer Singh, AAG Haryana for the respondent.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The epitome of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner Mahesh Chand Singhla son of Kalumal Singhla (convict) came to the house of complainant Parmod Rana and promised him to enroll as a member of committee and received an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- from him. It was claimed that the petitioner neither enrolled the complainant as a member of any committee nor returned the money and thus has mis-appropriated the indicated amount. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, vide FIR No.492 dated 6.8.2003, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 406, 420 and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Saran, District Faridabad.
2. Having completed all the codal formalities, while acquitting the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 420 and 506 IPC, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under section 406 IPC only, by means of impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.4.2011 and order of sentence dated 21.4.2011.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction & order of CRR No.1936 of 2012 -2- sentence, the appeal filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 4.4.2012.
4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition.
6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since there is no cogent & reliable evidence on record, so, the petitioner is entitled to acquittal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
7. As is evident from the record, that complainant Parmod Kumar while appearing as PW1, has, inter-alia, reiterated the allegations contained in the complaint (Ex.P1) on all vital counts. PW2 Sub Inspector Rajbir Singh proved the recovery memos (Ex.PW2/A & B). Sequelly, PW3 Ramesh Kumar proved the endorsement of FIR (Ex.PW3/A). Likewise, PW4 Ram Avtar Singla, PW5 Jeet Ram Bansal, PW6 Kaushal Garg, PW7 Rajinder Tyagi & PW7 Arun Munjal appeared in the witness box. PW9 Ram Gopal, Addl. Ahlmad has proved the order (Ex.PW8/A) of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad. Instead of reproducing their statements in toto and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that they have duly corroborated the prosecution version in its entirety on all vital counts. PW1 to PW7 have participated in the proceedings of the committee and maintained that the petitioner has misappropriated the impugned amount. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted & sentenced him in the manner indicated here-in-above.
8. Not only that, the entire evidence was again re-examined and the appellate Court, negatived all the contentions, now sought to be urged on behalf of CRR No.1936 of 2012 -3- petitioner and dismissed his appeal, vide impugned judgment dated 4.4.2012, the operative part of which is as under (para 27):-
"I am convinced with the arguments advanced by learned PP that there was sufficient material to proceed against the appellant-accused and the learned trial court has not committed any error while sentencing the appellant-accused vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.4.2011 and order of sentence dated 21.4.2011. No doubt, learned defence counsel advanced the arguments that there are no specific allegations against the appellant-accused and ingredients of section 406 IPC are not fulfilled in the present case but from the bare reading of the com,plaint Ex.P1 as well as deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the appellant- accused misappropriated the entire amount given to him by the complainant and others. The investigation proceedings are proved by PW2 SI Rajbir Singh. Ingredients of Section 406 IPC are duly proved against the appellant- accused. The minor contradictions pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant-accused do not go to the root of the case. The documents Ex.D1 placed on file by the appellant-accused is not in any way helpful to the appellant as it has no concern with the case in hand."
9. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have considered the evidence on record in the right perspective and correctly convicted the petitioner in this respect.
10. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for petitioner fairly acknowledged that he has no other argument/material/ground much less cogent, to assail the prosecution version. Be that as it may, however, the argument of learned counsel that there is large scope of reduction of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below, has considerable force.
11. As is clear that the petitioner was convicted on the complaint dated 5.7.2003 (Ex.P1) of the complainant. He 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 4 months & 22 days of his substantive sentence of imprisonment, out of total sentence of imprisonment of six months awarded to him by the Courts below. There is no history of his previous CRR No.1936 of 2012 -4- involvement in any other criminal case. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, oozing from the record, as indicated here-in- above, to my mind, it will be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the sentence of imprisonment of six months imposed on the petitioner, is reduced to the period of 4 months & 22 days, already undergone by him.
12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgments of conviction are 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.
13. Needless to mention that necessary consequence will naturally follow accordingly.
29.8.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge