Criminal Revision Nos.1820 to 1822 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Criminal Revision No.1820 of 2006 Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ....Respondent ... (2) Criminal Revision No.1821 of 2006 Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ....Respondent ... (3) Criminal Revision No.1822 of 2006 Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ....Respondent ... Date of Decision: 23 – 11 – 2011 ... CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. *** Criminal Revision Nos.1820 to 1822 of 2006 [2] KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Sukhwinder Singh present petitioner was Sarpanch of Village Taprian. As per prosecution case, during his term as a Sarpanch in the year 1995-96 he had embezzled Rs.50,365.10 paise. Since the amount pertained to different years, the FIR was split into three cases. Criminal Case No.16/1 dated 10.1.2001, out of which Criminal Revision No.1820 of 2006 has arisen, is regarding embezzlement of Rs.13,672/-. The allegations of the prosecution against the petitioner can be culled out from the judgment rendered in Criminal Case No.16/1 dated 10.1.2001, decided by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala:- 24 bags of cement Rs.153.00 per bag : Rs.3672/- Labour Expenditure : Rs.10,000/- The total of above said amount : Rs.13,672.00 comes to In Criminal Case No.14/1 dated 10.1.2001, decided on 15.1.2004, out of which Criminal Revision No.1821 of 2006 has arisen, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had embezzled a sum of Rs.36,693.10 paise and calculation of same is given in the judgment of the trial Court and is reproduced as under:- Sand 485 foot @ Rs.3.35 P. per foot - Rs.1576.25 P. Concrete 583 foot @ Rs.8.40 P. per foot - Rs.4897.00 Brick bats 250 foot @ Rs.5.00 per foot - Rs.1250.00 Bricks 13546 @ Rs.1025/- per thousand - Rs.13884.65 P. Labour expenditure - Rs.15085.00 The total of above said amount comes to - Rs.36693.10 P. In Criminal Case No.13/1 dated 10.1.2001, decided on 15.1.2001, against which Criminal Revision No.1822 of 2006 has arisen, the Criminal Revision Nos.1820 to 1822 of 2006 [3] allegation is for non deposit of the funds received from the Government. Be that as it may, the allegations in all the three cases is that during his term as Sarpanch, the petitioner had embezzled a sum of Rs.50,365.10 paise. Mr.H.S.Dhindsa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that in all the three cases, petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and the sentence awarded has been ordered to run concurrently by the Appellate Court below. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is ready and willing to return the amount of embezzlement. He has further relied upon the affidavit of Superintendent of Police (Prison), Central Jail, Ludhiana, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has undergone 1 month and 2 days of actual sentence. It is submitted that occurrence in the present case pertains to the year 1994-95 and, thus, the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of 17 years. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in all the three cases and the same has been ordered to run concurrent, this Court is of the view that sending the petitioner behind the bars may not serve the ends of justice and furthermore in case the petitioner returns the amount which was meant for the development work to be carried out in the village, it may serve the ends of justice. In all the three cases, the total amount which the petitioner had embezzled is Rs.50,365.10 paise. Therefore, as stated by counsel for the petitioner, in case the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is deposited by the petitioner Criminal Revision Nos.1820 to 1822 of 2006 [4] within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in all the three cases, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In case amount of embezzled amount is not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period, benefit of reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the him. With the aforesaid observations, the present petitions are disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 23, 2011. JUDGE RC