Criminal Revision Nos.692, 693 and 694 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Revision No. 692 of 2002 Sat Narain …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent 2. Criminal Revision No. 693 of 2002 Sat Narain …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent AND 3. Criminal Revision No. 694 of 2002 Sat Narain …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Date of Decision: 5.4.2010 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. J.S. Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Criminal Revision Nos.692, 693 and 694 of 2002 2 Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, Criminal Revision Nos. 692 to 694 of 2002, preferred by the petitioner, shall be decided together. Petitioner Sat Narain was named as an accused in case FIR No. 169 dated 20.6.1985 registered at Police Station Kharkhoda under Sections 420, 409, 468 and 471 IPC. The petitioner was posted as Extra Departmental Sub Post Master in village Sisana. Various depositors/investors had handed over their money to the petitioner to be deposited in their accounts. It is stated that the petitioner had misappropriated those amounts. Since the amounts pertained to the different periods, therefore, various challans were filed against the petitioner. In criminal Revision No. 795 of 1994, sentence of the petitioner was reduced to already undergone. In Criminal Revision Nos. 238 to 244 of 2001, the petitioner has already undergone the complete sentence of two years, awarded to him by the trial Court. Jai Kishan Chhillar, Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Sonepat, has filed an affidavit that in Criminal Revision Nos. 692 to 694 of 2002, the petitioner has undergone one year four months and five days out of two years' sentence awarded to him. In Criminal Revision No. 795 of 1994, a Single Bench of this Court, vide order dated 23.7.2009, has reduced the sentence of the petitioner to that of already undergone. It will be apposite here to reproduce the following portion of the judgment rendered in the said case:- “The petitioner was posted as Extra Criminal Revision Nos.692, 693 and 694 of 2002 3 Departmental Sub Post Master in village Sisana. While serving there, he allegedly embezzled public/government money. His nefarious activities came to light when pass-book of a depositor of village Sisana was transferred to Faridabad. The matter was got investigated by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sonepat Division and on whose complaint, F.I.R. No. 169 dated 20.6.1985 was registered at Police Station, Kharkhoda under Sections 420, 409, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. Various challans were filed against the petitioner by the police accusing him of more than one offences in view of the provisions of Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. The instant case pertains to three incidents of mis- appropriation, cheating, forgery and embezzlement in the year 1983”. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence awarded to him was dismissed by the appellate Court. Hence, this revision petition. At the out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a report was obtained from the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kharkhoda to the effect that the depositors whose amounts were alleged to have been embezzled by the Criminal Revision Nos.692, 693 and 694 of 2002 4 petitioner, have already received their money. That report is available on the record. He further contended that the petitioner has suffered the agony of the criminal proceedings for last twenty four years and he is well advanced in age. In view of this, he prayed for a lenient view in the matter of sentence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency as he had cheated the depositors while discharging his official duties. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions/submissions and have gone through the record. No doubt, the petitioner had cheated and mis-appropriated the money deposited by the depositors, but it is evident that they have already received the amounts which was embezzled by him. The petitioner has faced the criminal proceedings for the last twenty four years and he must be in advance stage of his life. Therefore, in my view, the sentence awarded to him deserves to be reduced to that of the imprisonment already undergone. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of in the following manner:- 1. the conviction of the petitioner is upheld; Criminal Revision Nos.692, 693 and 694 of 2002 5 2. the sentence awarded to him is reduced to that of already undergone; 3. the amount of fine as imposed by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court shall be deposited by the petitioner, if already not done within a period of two months from today. 4. Failure to deposit the amount of fine shall automatically revive the sentence awarded to him”. In the present case, out of the sentence of two years, the petitioner has undergone one year, four months and five days. I find no reason to formulate a contrary view than the one formulated in Criminal Revision No. 795 of 1994. Hence, the sentence of imprisonment to the petitioner is reduced to one year, four months and five days, which he has already undergone, in all the three revision petitions. With the observations made above, all the three revision petitions are disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 5, 2010 “DK”