Criminal Revision No.727 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.727 of 2005 Date of Decision : 17.02.2011. Amit Kumar ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S, Chauhan, D.A.G., Punjab, for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Amit Kumar-petitioner along with Raj Kumar @ Raju (since deceased) was charge sheeted for an offence under Sections 182, 408 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on August 16th, 1989, he being the servant of Paramjit Singh-complainant (PW-3) committed breach of trust in respect of an amount of ` 1,12,000/-. Trial Magistrate by judgment dated October 30th, 1999 convicted and sentenced the petitioner and his co-accused as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 182 IPC RI for 6 months -- -- 408 IPC RI for 2 years ` 500/- RI for 1 month The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved of the said judgment, petitioner filed appeal before Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The appeal was dismissed by judgment dated March 24th, 2005. 3. Against the judgments of the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that per the prosecution case, amount of ` 1,12,000/- was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The amount was recovered Criminal Revision No.727 of 2005 2 .. from the possession of Raj Kumar @ Raju, co-accused (since deceased), a fact which has not been refuted by the State counsel. It has been pointed out by him that the said amount was returned to Paramjit Singh-complainant, as finds mention in the order dated April 6th, 1995 of the trial Magistrate. He also added that the petitioner is now senior citizen and has two grown up daughters, aged about 19 years and 21 years, to be looked after. He has already undergone sentence of 3 months and 3 days so, the conviction may be maintained but the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. The aforesaid circumstances are of mitigating nature and justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 6. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 17.02.2011 neetu