1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1733 of 2001 Date of Decision: 14.10.2010 *** Raunak Chand .. Petitioner Vs. CBI/State .. Respondent with Crl. Revision No. 1734 of 2001 *** Raunak Chand .. Petitioner Vs. CBI/State .. Respondent and Crl. Revision No. 467 of 2002 *** Raunak Chand .. Petitioner Vs. CBI/State .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Kulbir Narwal, Advocate for Ms. Sarita Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for CBI. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The above referred petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment being filed by one and the same petitioner. 2 Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petitions are that the petitioner Raunak Chand was tried by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate,CBI, Punjab Patiala for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC pursuant to three different FIRs registered by the CBI. In case FIR No. RC-25 of 28.12.1990 it were the allegations against the petitioner that he, by impersonating himself as Lekh Raj, Prop. of M/s Ganesh Steel Industries opened one current account No.2629 on 15.12.1989 and later by fabricating entries in the ledger by showing the balance as 97750, which in fact was only Rs.750, in connivance with bank officials, withdrew an amount of Rs.93000/-. . Likewise in FIR No. RC-11 of 28.6.1991the allegations against the petitioner were that he impersonated himself as Des Raj, Prop. of M/s Bhatia Engineering Works, Amritsar and got opened current account No. 1685 on 14.8.1989 and then by making a fictitious entry of Rs.40,000/-, he fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.40,500/-. It is the case of the prosecution that in both the cases, Harvinder Singh and Satnam Singh were also part of criminal conspiracy and instrumental in committing fraud and impersonation by preparing forged documents Similarly, case FIR No. 25 dated 31.12.1991 was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused Harvinder Singh and one Ashok Kumar, with the allegations that all of them entered into a criminal conspiracy and acted upon the same, the petitioner impersonated himself as Pawan Kumar of M/s Luxmi Steel Industries, Rajpura and got opened current account No. 2392/19 on 13.2.1990 and in connivance with the bank official, he fabricated the ledger entry and added the words “191” before the balance amount of Rs.300/-, thereby showing the balance as Rs.191,800/- and then fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. In all the FIRs, the petitioner and his co-accused were charge- sheeted for the offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led its evidence and on conclusion thereof they were held guilty (except Ashok Kumar in FIR No. 25/91 who stood acquitted), under the aforesaid Sections vide separate judgments dated 3 8.5.1995. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and 419 IPC. For committing an offence under Sections 420 and 468 IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- under each head was awarded while rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- each was awarded under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months was awarded. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Same is the sentence awarded to the petitioner in other two FIRs as well. Dis-satisfied with the same, the petitioner and co-accused preferred appeals, but the same were dismissed by the appellate Court. Hence, the instant revision petitions have been preferred by Raunak Chand alone. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched the merits of the case, but has confined his plea to the quantum of sentence and that the sentence awarded to the petitioner in all the three cases be ordered to run concurrently. It is no doubt true that the petitioner kept on cheating the bank one after the other and thereby caused pecuniary loss to it, but at the same time it is a matter of record that he is facing the agony of criminal proceedings for the last about 20 years, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, there needs some reduction in the sentence. Coming to the next plea of the counsel for the petitioner that his sentence in all the three cases be ordered to run concurrently, is concerned, the same is devoid of any merits. The petitioner, as noticed above, was booked in three different FIRs and in all the cases the offence committed by him pertains to different period and it is not disputed that transaction constituting the offences are different. The basic rule of thumb over the year has been the single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. Since, all the cases constitute different transactions and are also of serious nature, the plea of the petitioner for ordering the sentences in all the three cases to run concurrently, is declined. For the discussion above, the conviction of the petitioners in all the three cases is maintained. However, the substantial sentence imposed 4 upon him is reduced to the period of one year. The sentence of fine is also maintained. Revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Photo copy of this order be placed in the connected petitions. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 14,2010 Jiten