Criminal Revision filed by R.K. Tandon challenging the quantified sentence after a 24-year delay in completing the trial. The High Court refused to interfere with the conviction but reduced the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner; conviction affirmed.
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.
CRR 2165 of 2004
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 2165 of 2004 Date of Decision: July 25, 2012
R.K. Tandon
... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate, for Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the respondent.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner – R.K. Tandon against judgment dated 09.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 29.08.2001 on quantum of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh has been modified as follows:-
Under Section 419 read with Section 120-B IPC
RI for 1-1/2 years and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of fine, to undergo further RI for 30 days. Under Section 467 read with Section 120-B IPC
RI for 1-1/2 years and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of fine, to undergo further RI for 30 days.
CRR 2165 of 2004
2
Under Section 468 read with Section 120-B IPC
RI for 1-1/2 years and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of fine, to undergo further RI for 30 days.
Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant-Raunaq Singh stating that on 08.04.1988, Sarja Singh impersonated Raunaq Singh and got executed and registered, power of attorney purportedly executed by Raunaq Singh in favour of his wife. In pursuance of that forged and fabricated power of attorney, Balwinder Kaur posing herself as wife of Raunaq Singh, had sold the property to Baljit Singh, Iqbal Singh and Jarnail Singh on 20.04.1988. P.S. Walia, Advocate and R.K. Tandon, Property Dealer were alleged to have conspired with Balwinder Kaur and Sarja Singh by attesting the forged power of attorney and falsely maintaining before the Sub Registrar that impersonator was Raunaq Singh. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered a formal FIR (Ex.PB). Thereafter, investigation commenced. The accused were arrested. Personal search of the accused was conducted. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner and P.S. Walia, they were charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 Shiv Ram, PW2 Jarnail Singh, PW3 Harjinder Kaur, PW4 Darshan Singh, PW5 Mehar Singh, PW6 Harjinder Singh, PW7 Harnek Singh, PW8 Karnail Singh, PW9 Dev Singh and PW10 Inspector Hardev Singh and closed its evidence.
Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded
CRR 2165 of 2004
3
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating circumstances were put to them. They denied the same and pleaded innocence.
The learned Trial Court, after trial, convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2001 as follows:-
Under Section 120-B IPC
RI for 3 years and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of fine, to undergo further RI for 30 days.
Under Section 419 IPC
RI for 3 years and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of fine, to undergo further RI for 30 days.
Under Section 467 IPC
RI for 3 years and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of fine, to undergo further RI for 30 days.
Under Section 468 IPC
RI for 3 years and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of fine, to undergo further RI for 30 days.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Vide judgment dated 09.10.2004, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and modified the order on quantum of sentence as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this revision petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction on merit. He is only aggrieved against the sentence part. Learned
CRR 2165 of 2004 4
counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is a first offender. However, he prays that the sentence of the petitioner be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like Damocles' sword for the last more than twenty four years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the occurrence pertains to the year 1988 and since then a period of more than twenty four years has elapsed. The petitioner is a first offender and has suffered the ordeal for long period.
In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, which have been noted above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending petitioner behind the bars at this point of time as the petitioner faced ordeal for 24 years. It is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the petitioner can be reduced to the period already undergone. Therefore, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in the present case. The impugned order of sentence and conviction stands affirmed with aforesaid modification.
With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of.
July 25, 2012 vkd
[ Paramjeet Singh ] Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether in a fit case where a convicts has been suffering for over 24 years, the sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone.
Whether the petitioner, being a first offender aggrieved only by the sentence after a long delay, deserves leniency.
R.K. Tandon
State of U.T. Chandigarh
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
