Revision against conviction for cheating and forgery. Court upheld conviction but reduced imprisonment to period undergone and enhanced fine due to protracted trial and petitioner's age.
Imprisonment reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to ₹10,000; petitioner released.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.Revn. No. 3786 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Revn. No. 3786 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.12.2012
Ram Mehar
......Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Rakesh Lathwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Mishra, DAG, Haryana.
RITU BAHRI , J.
Challenge is to the judgment dated 06.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby he upheld the judgment/order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gohana.
Petitioners were convicted and sentenced vide order dated 22.02.2011 as under:-
| Period of Sentence | |
|---|---|
| Section 420 | One years simple imprisonment with fine of ` 1,000/- |
| Section 467 | Two years simple imprisonment with fine of ` 2000/- |
| Section 468 | One year simple imprisonment with fine of ` 1000/- |
| Section 120-B | Six months simple imprisonment. |
Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner
Crl.Revn. No. 3786 of 2012 (O&M) -2-
preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jalandhar, vide order dated 06.11.2012. Hence, the present revision petition.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bimla filed an application dated 17.11.2002 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gohana that accused Jagdish and Dharmpal, who are her brother-in-law (Jeth) and Shanti Devi her mother-in-law after the death of her husband, namely, Arjun in connivance with each other had sold the tractor bearing registration No. HR-11-2299 to Ram Mehar. Jagdish got affixed his thumb impression impersonating himself as Arjun and sold the tractor to Ram Mehar for a sale consideration of ` 95,000/-. On the basis of the same, a case bearing FIR No./ 126 dated 18.11.2012 in respect of commission of offence under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was registered.
Prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W 11 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 defence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction but prays that the
Crl.Revn. No. 3786 of 2012 (O&M)
-3-
sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him as as he is facing trial for the last 11 years. The petitioner is only bread earner of his family and is a first time offender.
Learned counsel for the State 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. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone 02 months and 5 days as per custody certificate dated 18.12.2012.
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 11 years and he is 70 years of age. Since the date of registration of the complaint on 04.06.2001, It is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and the fine is enhanced to ` 10,000/-, which shall be deposited before the trial Court. It is directed that
Crl.Revn. No. 3786 of 2012 (O&M)
-4-
the petitioner be released to the satisfaction of CJM/ Duty Magistrate, Sonepat.
With the above modification/direction, the present petition stands disposed of.
( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
December 19, 2012 Atul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner can be reduced to the period undergone given the protracted trial and age.
Whether the fine imposed in the conviction order requires modification.
Ram Mehar
State of Haryana
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
