-1- Criminal Revision No.1151 of 2005. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1151 of 2005. Date of Decision: March 17 , 2010. Rachhpal Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Rachhpal Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). For the former offence, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default -2- Criminal Revision No.1151 of 2005. whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the latter offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rws.500/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court was partly allowed by the lower appellate Court inasmuch as his conviction and sentence under Section 406 of the Code was set aside. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 420 of the Code, as recorded by the trial Court, was upheld by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing in spite of the fact that his presence was requisitioned by the Reader of this Court by displaying his name in the notice board through the Computer installed in the Court. I have heard the learned State counsel and have gone through the records of the case. The instant case was registered at the instance of complainant Manjinder Singh (P.W.2). Manjinder Singh (complainant) was having the qualification of 10 + 2 and had joined the Police Department as S.P.O in District Tarn Taran on 24.9.1991. However, he was discharged from that Department on account of his absence from duty. The accused-petitioner, who -3- Criminal Revision No.1151 of 2005. was employed in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti and was known to Gursharan Singh, brother of the complainant, gave an offer that he would get employment for the complainant in the Police Department on account of his acquaintances in that Department. The petitioner demanded Rs.20,000/- from the complainant for that purpose. After arranging the money, the complainant accompanied by his brother Gursharan Singh (P.W.3) and his cousin brother Hardev Singh (P.W.1) went to the house of the accused-petitioner on 12.12.1994 at about 5 P.M and gave him Rs.17,000/-. The complainant promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner after his appointment. The accused-petitioner could not procure employment for the complainant and kept on extending false promises to him. On 29.3.1995, the complainant approached Assistant Sub Inspector Surinder Kumar (P.W.8) and made statement (Exhibit P.A) before him leading to the registration of the instant case against the petitioner. The evidence produced by the prosecution proves, in certain terms, that the petitioner had deceived the complainant by extending false promise of getting job for him in the Police Department. The prosecution witnesses had no enmity with the petitioner to falsely implicate him in this case. Hardev Singh (P.W.1), complainant Manjinder Singh (P.W.2) and Gursharan Singh (P.W.3) have deposed in unison that the petitioner had promised that he would get employment for -4- Criminal Revision No.1151 of 2005. Manjinder Singh in the Police Department as Constable and the complainant handed over Rs.17,000/- to the petitioner for this work. It has come on record that the petitioner had returned Rs.12,000/- to the complainant by handing over a coloured television to him (complainant). A perusal of receipt (Exhibit P.C) shows that the petitioner had admitted that he had taken Rs.17,000/- from the complainant for getting him employed in the Police Department. Rs.12,000/- were admitted to have been returned by the accused to Manjinder Singh by selling his television and had promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- later on. No evidence was led by the petitioner to show that he had taken Rs.17,000/- from the complainant for some other purpose than for getting him employed in the Police Department. The petitioner has, thus, rightly been convicted and sentenced under Section 420 of the Code. In view of the above, conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 of the Code, as recorded by both the Courts below is upheld. However, keeping in view the fact that the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the petitioner for about fifteen years as the matter relates to March, 1995, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 420 of the Code is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year without altering the sentence of fine and the default clause. I order accordingly. -5- Criminal Revision No.1151 of 2005. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is dismissed. March 17 , 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE