In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 794 of 2002 Date of decision: March 04, 2009 Partap Singh and others ... Petitioners vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Rajat Goyal, AAG, Haryanan for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 20.4.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dismissing the appeals filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as 'the petitioners') against the judgment dated 31.3.1997 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 120-B IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 406 IPC. The brief resume of facts is that the complainant Maya Pati submitted a complaint (Ex.PW1/A) alleging therein that Partap was employed as lineman in Electricity Board and used to represent himself to be an agent of Insurance Company. He brought Ramesh and Ishar to the house of the complainant and introduced them as Manager and Field Officer respectively in the Insurance Company. In the year 1983-84, the complainant as well as her relatives invested Rs.44,000/- in the said Insurance Company under various policies. Apart from that, the complainant had given Rs.14,300/- to the petitioners for providing employment of her two sons. It has been further alleged that on maturity, when she demanded the amount from Ramesh and Ishar, they did not return and put off the matter on one pretext or the other. After repeated demands, Crl. Revision No. 794 of 2002 -2- *** they gave a cheque of Rs.2500/- which on presentation for encashment was dishonoured. Thereafter, due to pressure, the petitioners shifted their office from Bhiwani to Rohtak and after some time closed the same. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were charged for the offences under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Maya Pati complainant (PW1), Amar Phal (PW2), Ram Dhan (PW3), S.C. Goyal, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate (PW4), ASI Balwan Singh (PW5), SI Subhash Chander (PW6) and Sube Singh (PW7). In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. They examined Ram Kumar (DW1) in defence. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeals preferred by them also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been urged that the petitioners are the first offenders and have already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence. The counsel further urged that since they have already paid the amount to the complainant, they be extended some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the same appears to be shorn of any illegality much less irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Resultantly, findings of fact returned by both the courts below stand affirmed. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the complaint was lodged in the year 1988 and the petitioners have already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings. They have already undergone about two months out of the substantive sentence. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners have already paid the amount to the complainant. Under the circumstances of the case, I am of Crl. Revision No. 794 of 2002 -3- *** the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are extended benefit of probation. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that they be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hisar for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, they are further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the name of complainant as compensation payable to him within three months from today failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar for compliance. March 04, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge