CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1161 OF 2006 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 17, 2011 Suresh Kumar Jain ...Petitioner Versus CBI ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRR No. 1161 of 2006) Mr. Bipin Ghai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anju Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRR No. 1166 & 1172 of 2006) Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for CBI. RANJIT SINGH, J. A common question of facts and law arises in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1161, 1166, 1172 and 1228 of 2006. Similar Criminal Revision Petitions were disposed of through a common order passed in Criminal Revision No.1176 of 2006 titled Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Punjab through CBI. Present Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1161, 1166, 1172 and 1228 of 2006 are also required to be disposed of in the same terms. The petitioner herein was sent for trial for commission of an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC with the allegation that while functioning as Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, birring branch District Jalandhar, entered into CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1161 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: a criminal conspiracy with Parbhash Chand Jain, Raj Kumar Jain, Ramesh Chand Jain, partners of firms M/s P.S. Jain Motors, G.T.Road, Jalandhar and Nem Chand Jain, Suresh Kumar Jain son of Ajit Parshad Jain, Shiv Kumar, Suresh Kumar Jain son of Padam Parkash, Yashbir Singh and Jaswant Rai accused persons with the object to cheat and defraud the bank. As per the allegation, pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy, Pradhdev Singh Jaggi, by abusing his official position as Branch Manager, advanced an amount of ` 1,00,000/- each to Suresh Kumar Jain son of Padam Parkash Jain, Yashbir Singh, Suresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar Jain son of Padam Parkash Jain and Yashbir Singh residents of 80 New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, Suresh Kumar Jain son of A.P. Jain and Shiv Kumar son of Ishwar Parshad on 28.07.1979 for purchase of truck chassis from M/s P.S.Jain Motors, G.T.Road, Jalandhar. The petitioner was convicted for the offences and imposed six months RI and 1½ RI for offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC respectively coupled with fine of ` 1,000/-. The petitioner was also to undergo two months RI in case of default in payment of fine. The Appellate Court maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the orders passed in similar cases, where some revision petitions were disposed of in the same terms as was ordered in Criminal Appeal Nos. 550-SB of 1995, 542-SB and 579-SB. This Court has upheld the order of conviction of petitioner but the fine was enhanced while the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone. Mr. A.P.S. Deol, senior counsel appearing for the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1161 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: petitioner points out that Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2002 titled as Suresh Kumar Jain Versus State of Punjab was disposed of on 06.01.2011 in the above terms and prays that the present case being similar may be disposed of in the same terms. Counsel appearing for the respondent-CBI has not disputed the factual position that various revision petitions have been disposed of by this Court as noted above. The only difference as pointed out by the counsel for the respondent is that the entire amount has still not been paid. This was the position even in Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2002. It was then pointed out before the Court that the proceedings for the recovery of amount were separately pending. This Court had, accordingly, disposed of the said Revision Petition with the direction in the above terms and has fixed the total amount of ` 3 lakhs to be shared equally by the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to deposit the amount before the trial Court within two days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Adopting the same course, the sentence imposed on the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner, however, will pay a fine of ` 3.45 lacs to be shared equally by the petitioners in these four petitions. The petitioners shall deposit the amount of fine imposed before the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The present revision petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. October 17,2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE