Criminal Revision No.482 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.482 of 2002 Date of decision: 1-2-2010 Amar Chand .........Petitioner Vs State of Haryana .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri S.P.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Tarunveer Vashisth, Addl. Advocate General Haryana HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 20.2.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Amar Chand accused against the judgment dated 30.9.1999/order of sentence dated 1.10.1999 rendered by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula vide which he convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 409 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 467 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months, with a further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The facts in brief are that the accused who was a Branch Post Master, Bharoli had left village alongwith his family on the night of Criminal Revision No.482 of 2002 2 23.6.1984 to some unknown place and a sum of Rs. 2518.93 was fond less in the cash balance on account of the cash and stamps of the Post Office in the presence of his father Seo Ram. Further probe led to the discovery of fraud of certain other amounts. On the basis of the complaint made by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala Division case was registered. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Section 409/467 I.P.C. to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. He did not lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, he has preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On Criminal Revision No.482 of 2002 3 analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the both the Courts below. Consequently, conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since long and that being so the sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. Herein, as per the custody certificate taken on record, the petitioner has undergone 5 months 23 days of the actual sentence. The petitioner while on bail during the pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence is reduced to the already undergone (5 months 23 days) while maintaining the fine as well its default clause. With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE February 1, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No