Criminal Revision No. 1559 of 2005 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1559 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.10.2010 Gaurav Bagga ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.S.Hundal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 13.8.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of ` 500/- under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 6.7.2005 passed by the Additional Criminal Revision No. 1559 of 2005 (O&M) 2 Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Fast Track Court II, Hoshiarpur. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “ The brief facts of the case are that Rajinder Kumar, Roshan Lal son of Mohinder Ram, Satnam Singh son of Gurdial Singh, Bakhshish Singh son Harbans Singh and Satnam Singh son of Shingara Singh filed complaint Ex. PA before S.S.P., Hoshiarpur against Gaurav Bagga son of Shamsher Singh Bagga and his wife Kanta resident of Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. It was alleged that Gaurav Bagga and others on the pretext of sending the complainants to foreign country, took huge amount from the complainants but till that date, he did not sent them to foreign country and he was not ready to return their money. Whenever they used to go to Mahilpur then he used to make one excuse or the other. He used to call 2/4 persons to beat the complainant. Gaurav Bagga was running a Dental Clinic. Gaurav Bagga and his mother were knowing a few persons residents of Jalandhar because they were related to them. Gaurav Bagga had executed a written agreement with the complainants but he did not fulfill the same. Rajinder Kumar son of Karam Chand was taken by Gaurav Bagga to Thailand in Criminal Revision No. 1559 of 2005 (O&M) 3 November, 1998 and he sold him to one Muslim known as Suhel. He did not provide Rajinder Kumar food nor any pay was paid to him. He was detained in a room. It was further alleged that the accused persons had snatched passport of Rajinder Kumar. Whenever, they used to make call to Gaurav Bagga he used to say that the passport has been sent to Malaysia for grant of Visa. Lastly, in the month of March, 1999 Suhel contacted father of Rajinder Kumar and asked him to sent 500 Dollars and remaining expenses would be borne by Rajinder Kumar. He further disclosed that after receiving 500 Dollars he would hand over the passport to Rajinder Kumar who could be able to go back to India. Karam Chand arranged Rs. 35,000/- and paid the same to Shamsher Singh resident of Mohalla Kamalpur. He went to Thailand and got Rajinder Kumar freed from Suhel and brought Rajinder Kumar back to India on 07-04-1999. Detail of payment was also mentioned. It was alleged that Rajinder Kumar son of Karam Chand spent the following amounts on different occasions. After obtaining the opinion of the District Attorney (legal) present case was registered against the accused vide FIR No. 279 dated 12-11-1999 under Section 420 of IPC.” Criminal Revision No. 1559 of 2005 (O&M) 4 During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by him. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner is the only bread earner of the family and is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1999. Fine as imposed the trial Court has already been deposited by the petitioner. As per the custody certificate placed on record by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has undergone four months and fifteen days of actual sentence and is not involved in any other criminal case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner to already undergone by him Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE October 26, 2010 anita