IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Revision No.1926 of 2002 (O&M) Surinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent 2. Criminal Revision No.1899 of 2002 Jaswant Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab … Respondent 3. Criminal Revision No.1948 of 2002 Nirmala Rani and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab … Respondent Date of decision: 26th April, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1899 of 2002. Mr. Jagjit Singh Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1926 of 2002. Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Arora, Advocate and Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the petitioners Criminal Revisions No.1926, 1899 & 1948 of 2002 in Criminal Revision No.1948 of 2002. Mr. G.S. Singhania, Advocate for the applicant-complainant. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Criminal Misc. No.21329 of 2010 in Criminal Revision No.1926 of 2002 Application is allowed. Affidavit dated 5th March, 2009 of the complainant Prem Singh is taken on record. By this common order, (1) Criminal Revision No.1899 of 2002 preferred by Jaswant Singh and Charan Singh (2) Criminal Revision No.1926 of 2002 preferred by Surinder Singh and (3) Criminal Revision No. 1948 of 2002 preferred by Nirmala Rani and Sohan Lal Singla, shall be decided altogether. In the present case, FIR was lodged by Prem Singh PW-6. He was married to Santosh Rani PW-5. In the FIR, complainant stated that his wife Santosh Rani and mother-in-law Hukma Devi were owner in possession of 3 Bighas 12 Biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.2518. One Nirmala Rani wife of Surinder Pal was also owner of 1 Bigha 14 Biswas of land out of this Khasra Number. She had sold 1 Bigha 13 Biswas of land to various persons. Later-on it was learnt that one Nirmala Rani wife of Raj Kumar had sold the land to various persons, impersonating as Nirmala Rani wife of Surinder Pal. The trial Court found the present petitioners along with co-accused Gurtej Singh and Ashok Kumar guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 467, 120-B, 468, 471 IPC. They were sentenced as under: Nirmala Rani Sec. 420 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.300/- I.D. 1 ½ months 2 Criminal Revisions No.1926, 1899 & 1948 of 2002 Sec. 419 IPC R.I. for 1 year Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 month Sec. 467 IPC R.I. for 2 years Fine Rs.400/- I.D. 2 months Sec. 468 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 471 IPC R.I. for 6 months Fine Rs.100/- I.D. 20 days. Sohan Lal Sec. 420 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.300/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 419/34 IPC R.I. for 1 year Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 month Sec. 120-B IPC R.I. for 2 yrs Fine Rs.300/- I.D. 2 months Sec. 468 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 471 IPC R.I. for 6 months Fine Rs.100/- I.D. 20 days. Charan Singh Sec. 420 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.300/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 467 IPC R.I. for 2 years Fine Rs.400/- I.D. 2 months Sec. 468 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 471 IPC R.I. for 6 months Fine Rs.100/- I.D. 20 days. Surinder Singh Sec. 420 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.300/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 467 IPC R.I. for 2 years Fine Rs.400/- I.D. 2 months Sec. 468 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 471 IPC R.I. for 6 months Fine Rs.100/- I.D. 20 days. Jaswant Singh Sec. 420 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.300/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 467 IPC R.I. for 2 years Fine Rs.400/- I.D. 2 months Sec. 468 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 471 IPC R.I. for 6 months Fine Rs.100/- I.D. 20 days. Gurtej Singh Sec. 420 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.300/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 419/34 IPC R.I. for 1 year Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 month 3 Criminal Revisions No.1926, 1899 & 1948 of 2002 Sec. 120-B IPC R.I. for 2 yrs Fine Rs.300/- I.D. 2 months Sec. 468 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 471 IPC R.I. for 6 months Fine Rs.100/- I.D. 20 days. Ashok Kumar Sec. 420 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.300/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 419/34 IPC R.I. for 1 year Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 month Sec. 120-B IPC R.I. for 2 yrs Fine Rs.300/- I.D. 2 months Sec. 468 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years Fine Rs.200/- I.D. 1 ½ months Sec. 471 IPC R.I. for 6 months Fine Rs.100/- I.D. 20 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal field by Gurtej Singh and Ashok Kumar was accepted, whereas the appeals of the present petitioners were dismissed. Their conviction and sentence was maintained. Hence the present petitions. Today, an application bearing Criminal Misc. No.21329 of 2010 has been filed, in which an affidavit of the complainant has been placed on record to say that a compromise has been effected between the parties. A separate statement of the complainant Prem Singh has been recorded today in Court. The same be read as a part of this order. It has also been submitted that the fine has already been paid. The alleged sale deed was executed on 6th December, 1991. A period of about 19 years is going to elapse. Taking into consideration the very fact that the parties have arrived at a compromise as well as the fact that the accused petitioners have suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial, this Court is of the opinion that the same can be 4 Criminal Revisions No.1926, 1899 & 1948 of 2002 considered as a mitigating circumstance and the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone. With the observations made above, above mentioned three revision petitions are disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 26, 2010 rps 5