In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1314 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision:May 20, 2009 Dalvinder Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. G.S.Gandhi and Mr. R.P.Daaria, Advocates, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana *** SABINA, J. Dalvinder Singh-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') vide judgment dated 8.10.2004 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari. Vide order of even date passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgment dated 14.7.2007 Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Crl. Revision No. 1314 of 2007(O&M) -2 Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “The case of the prosecution,m put briefly, is that an application was received in the office of Superintendent of Police,Yamun Nagar on 22.7.1998 regarding illegal gratification having been taken by Dalvinder Singh from various people on the pretext that he would get loan from the Central Government for them. The accused was a resident of village Kot Basawa Singh and received a sum of Rs. 700/- each from 50 persons on the pretext that he would get loan sanctioned from D.R.D.A. and Haryana Harijan Kalyan Nigam. A couple of loans were sanctioned. In enquiry, however, it was revealed that the government was not charging any fee for the loan application nor incurred any expenses. The money collected by the accused was entirely for his own use. The police filed charge sheet against him for the offence under Section 420 IPC.” Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not a previous convict and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1998. Petitioner has already undergone about 3½ months of actual sentence awarded by the courts below. Most of the witnesses had turned hostile during trial. Learned counsel has requested that the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for Crl. Revision No. 1314 of 2007(O&M) -3- the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC is maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE May 20, 2009 PARAMJIT