Disposed¶15

Abbas @ Mohd. Abbas v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2025CRR/1343/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: sentence reduction to period already undergone; undue delay / prolonged pendency (FIR 25.05.1996; hearing after 29+ years); attesting witness to mortgage deed; not a beneficiary; first-time offender; Sections 420/467 read with 120-B IPC; Section 313 Cr.P.C.; cheating and forgery of loan/mortgage documents; P.S. F.P. Jhirka; suspension of sentence 09.07.2010; custody certificate 09.05.2025; co-accused revision CRR 223 of 2015 dismissed 23.02.2015; CRR-1343-2010(O&M); High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh; Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone (02 months and 22 days); sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine kept intact; conviction left undisturbed as it was not challenged. ¶15

Abbas @ Mohd. Abbas Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether, the petitioner not wishing to challenge his conviction and praying only for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, the substantive sentence should be so reduced, given that he is an attesting witness to the mortgage deed who is not a beneficiary, the matter is being decided after more than 29 years from registration of the FIR, and he is a first-time offender.

¶11

Court's answer

Since the petitioner is an attesting witness to the mortgage deed and not a beneficiary in any manner, the matter has been taken up after more than 29 years from the date of registration of the FIR, and he is a first-time offender, the Court deemed it appropriate to reduce his substantive sentence to the period already undergone, i.e., 02 months and 22 days.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The sentence of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Punjab & Haryana High Court, Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.) — sentence reduction on ground of prolonged pendency. Abbas @ Mohd. Abbas, convicted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka (judgment/order of sentence dated 12/13.03.2007) under Section 420 r/w 120-B IPC (RI 01 year + fine Rs.500/-) and Section 467 r/w 120-B IPC (RI 02 years + fine Rs.500/-, concurrent; default RI 10 days) as an attesting witness to a mortgage deed in a 1996 mortgage-fraud case, whose appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nuh on 21.04.2010, did not challenge his conviction but prayed for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. Holding that the petitioner was not a beneficiary, that the matter was being decided after more than 29 years from registration of the FIR (25.05.1996), and that he was a first-time offender, the Court reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone (02 months and 22 days), keeping the fine and default sentence intact. Revision petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

CRR-1343-2010(O&M)

¶2

#1#

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH .

¶4

CRR-1343-2010(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision:-13.05.2025

¶6

Abbas @ Mohd. Abbas .

¶7

......Petitioner.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Haryana .

¶10

......Respondent.

¶11

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

¶12

Present:Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Viney Phogat, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

¶14

¶15

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

¶16

The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 21.04.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nuh whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12/13.03.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka has been dismissed.

¶17

The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 25.05.1996. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 13/13.03.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka. The Appeal filed against the order of conviction was dismissed on 21.04.2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nuh. The instant revision petition was filed on 14.05.2010 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of more than 29 years from the date of registration of

¶18

the FIR.

¶19

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.14 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

#2#

¶21

CRR-1343-2010(O&M)

¶22

In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.5.1996, Jhabru alias Chander filed an application to SHO, P.S. F.P. Jhirka on the ground that Umar Mohammad son of Noor Mohammad had mortgaged his (complainant's) land with the Primary co-operative Agriculture Development Bank, F.P. Jhirka for obtaining a loan of Rs. 90,000/-. The photographs of Umar Mohammad were filed on the loan application whereas the loan was issued in the name of the complainant Jhabru. Loan documents were signed by Numberdar Noor Mohammad and Farrukh son of Rujdar were shown as witnesses on mortgage deed. On enquiry, he came to know that Umar Mohammad etc. want to grab his property. The Complainant requested for legal action against the accused Umar Mohammad, Noor Mohammad and other accused. On the basis of this application, the present case was registered against the accused. Site plan was prepared. Statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded. The Accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Trial Court.

¶23

The accused were charge sheeted under Sections 419/420/467/120B of IPC by the Trial Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶24

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Jhabru as PW-1, Hanumand Singh as PW-2, Akhtar Hussain as PW3, Aas Mohammad as PW-4, ASI Kanhaiya Lal as PW-5 and SI Vidya Nand as PW-6. 6. Statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied each and every incriminating allegations levelled against them.

¶25

7. Based on the evidence led, the accused/petitioners c ame to be convicted and sentenced by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

¶26

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.14 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

#3#

¶28

CRR-1343-2010(O&M)

¶29

Ferozepur Jhirka vide judgment and order of sentence dated 12/13.03.2007 as under:-

¶30

Offences under Section	Sentence	Fine
Section 420 r/w 120-B IPC	RI for 01 Year	Rs.500/-
Section 467 r/w 120-B IPC	RI for02 Years	Rs.500/-

¶31

In default of payment of fine the accused/petitioner shall undergo RI for 10 days.

¶32

Both the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶33

The accused/petitioner along with his co-accused preferred an

¶34

appeal which came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nuh, vide judgment dated 21.04.2010.

¶35

The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present revision petition.

¶36

During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the sentence of the accused/petitioner was suspended vide order dated 09.07.2010.

¶37

The Counsel for the accused/petitioner at the very outset submits that he does not wish to challenge his conviction but prays that the sentence of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone as the occurrence had taken place in the year 1996 and the matter has come up for hearing now after more than 29 years.

¶38

The Counsel for the State on the other hand has placed on record the custody certificate dated 09.05.2025. He contends that the allegations against the petitioner are grave in as much as he is stated to have signed the forged mortgage deed as an attesting witness. Further the revision petition preferred by Ummar Mohd. stands dismissed. He thus prays that the petitioner is not entitled to any sympathy and the petition be

¶39

dismissed.

¶40

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.14 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CRR-1343-2010(O&M)

¶42

#4#

¶43

I have heard counsel for the parties.

¶44

As per the prosecution case the petitioner is an attesting witness

¶45

to a mortgage deed. He is not the beneficiary in any manner. The main accused Umar Mohd had approached this Court by way of CRR 223 of 2015 and the said petition came to be dismissed on 23.02.2015. Be that as it may, as the petitioner is not a beneficiary the matter has been taken up after more than 29 years from the date of registration of the FIR and he is first time offender, I deem it appropriate to reduce the substantive sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him i.e. 02 months and 22 days. The sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact.

¶46

The present revision petition stands disposed of in the above

¶47

terms.

¶48

( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) JUDGE

¶49

May 13, 2025 Vinay

¶50

*Whether speaking/reasoned*	*Yes/No*
*Whether reportable*	*Yes/No*

¶51

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.14 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 21.04.2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nuh dismissing the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12/13.03.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka.¶1
Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nuh · 21.04.2010
Prior proceeding
FIR in the case registered on 25.05.1996; revision petition heard after more than 29 years from registration of the FIR.¶2
Prior proceeding
Complaint by Jhabru alias Chander to SHO, P.S. F.P. Jhirka alleging that Umar Mohammad son of Noor Mohammad had mortgaged the complainant's land with the Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank, F.P. Jhirka to obtain a loan of Rs. 90,000/- issued in the complainant's name, with forged photographs and mortgage-deed attestations, to grab his property.¶3
Prior proceeding
Accused charge-sheeted under Sections 419/420/467/120B IPC; pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.¶4
Prior proceeding
Prosecution examined six witnesses: Jhabru (PW-1), Hanumand Singh (PW-2), Akhtar Hussain (PW-3), Aas Mohammad (PW-4), ASI Kanhaiya Lal (PW-5), SI Vidya Nand (PW-6).¶5
Prior proceeding
Statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; they denied the incriminating allegations.¶6
Prior proceeding
Conviction and sentence dated 12/13.03.2007 by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka: RI 01 year + fine Rs.500/- (Section 420 r/w 120-B IPC) and RI 02 years + fine Rs.500/- (Section 467 r/w 120-B IPC).¶7
Prior proceeding
Both substantive sentences ordered to run concurrently; in default of fine, RI for 10 days.¶7
Prior proceeding
Appeal by the accused/petitioner along with co-accused dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nuh on 21.04.2010.¶8
Prior proceeding
During pendency of the revision petition, sentence of the accused/petitioner suspended vide order dated 09.07.2010.¶10
Prior proceeding
Main accused Umar Mohd's revision petition (CRR 223 of 2015) before this Court dismissed on 23.02.2015; State placed custody certificate dated 09.05.2025 on record and opposed leniency.¶14

Abbas @ Mohd. Abbas v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abbas @ Mohd. Abbas v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkishan & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Kamal Preet Singh and Anr. Vs Mandeep Singh

Gurtej Singh Alias Jaggi Vs State of Punjab

Jagsir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Balbir and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

M/S Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic and Ors. Vs State of Haryana