Crl.Revision No.2508 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.2508 of 2004 Date of decision:20.4.2010 Amir Singh Ramgharia ... Petitioner versus Chanchal Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Rajesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for Mr.Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gagandeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ... JORA SINGH, J. Amir Singh Ramgharia son of Hazara Singh, resident of Shukerpura, Batala, District Gurdaspur, filed this revision to impugn the judgment dated 17.8.2004 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.2.1999 in Crl. Complaint No.48/1 of 28.4.1997, convicting the petitioner under Sections 467 and 471 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Sections 467 and 471 IPC, respectively, was dismissed. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant was carrying on the business of collection of money of committee system. Rs.50,000/- was due to the members of the committee but the complainant had no amount for paying to the members of the committee. House was sold in the Crl.Revision No.2508 of 2004 2 sum of Rs.65,000/- to make payment to the members. Out of Rs.65,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited in the bank. On 19.6.1983, Amir Singh gave an undertaking to make payment to the members of the committee. Joint account was opened by the complainant in the Punjab and Sind Bank, Batala, along with the accused bearing Account No.8626 dated 19.6.1983. Accused and the Branch Manager of the bank hatched a conspiracy to defraud the bank and the complainant. A sum of Rs.8,000/- was withdrawn on 28.6.1983 and Rs.10,000/- on 2.8.1983 on the basis of some forged documents without the knowledge of the complainant. Amount cannot be withdrawn from the bank by the accused alone without the signatures of the complainant. After preliminary evidence, accused was summoned to face trial under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. After appearance of the accused, evidence was led by the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, accused and from the perusal of evidence on file, petitioner accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 467/471 IPC, as stated aforesaid. Against the judgment of trial Court, appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 and gone through the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the parties have effected compromise. Petitioner has already undergone about nine months and fine has been deposited. Learned counsel requested to take a lenient view by directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment already undergone. Crl.Revision No.2508 of 2004 3 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that in view of the compromise, no objection if lenient view is taken. Chanchal Singh, respondent-complainant, was carrying on the business of committees. Rs.50,000/- was due from Chanchal Singh and to make payment to the members of the committee, house was sold in the sum of Rs.65,000/-. Joint account was opened by Chanchal Singh and the petitioner in Punjab and Sind Bank, Batala. Petitioner had undertaken to make payment to the members, but Rs.18,000/- was withdrawn by the petitioner with the connivance of Bank Manager from the joint account of Chanchal Singh and petitioner-accused. Dispute is regarding withdrawal by forging the documents. Evidence of the witnesses shows that after forging the documents, payment was withdrawn by the petitioner. Petitioner has not challenged the impugned judgment on the point of conviction. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to take a lenient view as per compromise. So, evidence on the file shows that offence punishable under Sections 467/471 IPC was committed by the petitioner. Revisional Court has no power to re-assess and re-evaluate the evidence on file. Impugned judgment is to be set aside if the same is perverse and evidence on the file was not legally appreciated. Amount was withdrawn in the year 1983. Petitioner is the first offender and is to maintain his wife and three children. He has already undergone about nine months. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. If the petitioner is sent to jail to undergo remaining sentence awarded by the trial Court, then he is to become hard criminal. Keeping in view the nature of offence and antecedents of the petitioner, impugned judgment is modified qua sentence and instead of Crl.Revision No.2508 of 2004 4 directing the petitioner to undergo remaining sentence, he is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (nine months). Fine maintained. With this modification on the point of sentence, revision being without merit is dismissed. 20.4.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE