Criminal Revision No. 1937 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1937 of 2009 Date of decision: December 7, 2009 Rattan Singh -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. HS Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. RK Nihalsinghwala, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) Petitioner Rattan Singh had been convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, under Sections 420 IPC vide judgment/order dated 11-7-2008 and was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment thereof to suffer further RI for one year. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence. The same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 3-7-2009 with a modification in the quantum of substantive sentence, by reducing the same to 1½ years' RI, though keeping the sentence of fine intact. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not Criminal Revision No. 1937 of 2009 2 assail the judgment of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of the petitioner is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case, subject to payment of adequate compensation to legal heirs of the deceased. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: A ruqa was sent to SHO, Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar by Inspector Police, Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar for registering a case against the accused/petitioner for allegedly receiving a reward of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of filing a complaint against Sukhdev Singh Patwari under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was further alleged in the ruqa that on the basis of complaint lodged by the present petitioner, a raid was conducted and Sukhdev Singh Patwari was arrested, against whom a criminal case was registered. On this account, a sum of Rs.25000/- was allegedly paid through a draft dated 26-5-2000 as a reward. During trial, Rattan Singh petitioner turned hostile, due to which the accused was acquitted. It is alleged that the petitioner has defrauded the Punjab Government by turning hostile, after taking a reward of Rs.25,000/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused/petitioner was presented in the court. Finding a prima facie case, the petitioner was charged under Sections 420 IPC, to which he pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the Criminal Revision No. 1937 of 2009 3 prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He denied the allegations of the prosecution. However, he did not produce any witness in his defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed with some modification in the quantum of sentence, referred to above. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420 IPC is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgments of conviction. He has however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is a first offender, the sole bread winner in the family and has already faced the agony of protracted trial for a number of years. As per reply filed by way of affidavit of Superintendent, Sub Jail Patti, the petitioner had undergone 3 months & 25 days of substantive sentence as on 15-10-2009. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner received an reward of Rs.25,000/- for getting a Patwari arrested in corruption case but later failed to support the prosecution case, leading to his acquittal, conviction of Criminal Revision No. 1937 of 2009 4 the petitioner herein deserves to be maintained. However, in view of the fact that petitioner has faced a protracted trial and is stated to be first offender, his sentence is reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment but fine is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The fine be remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence, as awarded by the trial Court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge December 7, 2009. 'ask'