Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 Date of decision : 15.11.2011. Major Singh and another ................ Petitioners vs. State of Punjab ................. Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Miss Harpinder Kaur, Advocate for Shri O.P.Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners. Miss Bhavna Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. K.C. PURI, J. This is revision petition against the judgment dated 12.7.2011 passed by Shri K.C.Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioners against the judgment and order dated 22.2.2011 passed by Shri Ravinder Kumar, the then learned Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 2 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners Major Singh and Seera Singh @ Lakhbir Singh has relied upon judgments passed by this Court (Mahesh Grover,J.) in criminal revision petition 1611 of 2011 titled as Reenu Jain vs. Keemti Lal Jain decided on 30.8.2011 whereby co-accused-petitioners, have been released after sentencing them to the period already undergone. Similar order has been passed by this Court (Ranjit Singh, J.) in Criminal Revision Petition No.1676 of 2011 titled Swarnjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab decided on 7.11.2011 whereby also co-accused-petitioner has been released after reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and the fine amount stood enhanced. 3. Custody certificates dated 15.7.2011 show that petitioner Major Singh has undergone incarceration for a period of eight months and fifteen days as on 15.7.2011 whereas Seera Singh petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of seven months and thirteen days as on 15.7.2011. As per calculation the petitioner Major Singh has undergone incarceration for a period of more than one year and petitioner Seera Singh has undergone incarceration for about one year. While disposing of aforesaid two revision petitions, the fine amount was enhanced. 4. So, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners However, their sentence of fine stands enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each. 5. With the modification in the sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 3 6. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. After deposit of the enhanced amount, as indicated above, if not required in any other case, the petitioners/accused be released forthwith. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 15 , 2011 sv Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 4 The case of the prosecution in brief is that Joginder Pal Singh moved an application to SSP, Barnala for registration of the case against the accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, of the Indian Penal Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 5 Code ( in short – the IPC) for criminal conspiracy and forging of the documents by alleging that complainant is uncle of Gundeep Singh was his brother, who is survived by his wife Ajmer Kaur, who used to reside in village Burj Hari Singh tehsil Raikot. But thereafter she started residing at Barnala with his son Gundeep Singh, who was desiring of settling in Canada. It was alleged that in the first week of March 2003, Ajmer Kaur stated for settling her son in Canada with her brother Chamkaur Singh and Seera whereupon he introduced them to Major Singh and Bholu of Raikot. It has been further alleged by that the complainant that Major Singh and Gholu stated to Ajmer Kaur that one Keemti Lal Jain, proprietor of Punjab Silk Store, Raikot is known to him and his family and they are expert in sending the Indian residents in Canada and have already sent many persons and they would make suitable arrangement for settlement of Gurndeep Singh also if they are ready to pay expenses. Thereafter, Ajmer Kaur talked with him (complainant) and Gundeep Singh and in second week of March, 2003 they were taken to the shop of Keemti Lal Jain at Raikot where Keemti Lal Jain introduced his wife Renu Jain sons Raja and Rajan Jain, daughter-in-law Muskan and Mohinder Singh. It has been further alleged that Keemti Lal Jain also told the, that they had already settled Tarsem Singh in Canada, who is known to him and he used to purchase clothes from him for marriage of his son and thereafter they disclosed their purpose for settlement of Gundeep Singh in Canada. Keemti Lal Jain told them if they can spend an amount of Rs.17, lacs then he can make arrangement for immigration of Gundeep Singh to canada by way of marriage with NRI girl of Indian origin, who had recently came to India for the purpose of Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 6 marriage and going to return within 4-5 days. Thereafter, when they gave their consent Renu and Muskan told them that one Paramjit Kaur Mangat daughter of H.S.Mangat had come from canada and they would make arrangement of marriage of Gundeep Singh with him and would also get a marriage certificate. Thereafter, they gave the consent and Rs.1lac was paid to Keemti Lal Jain at his shop on that very day. Accused had also shown Photostat copy of immigration form of the said girl showing her address as 6375 BC Abbotsfard and passport of the girl and the marriage was settled for 26.3.2003 at Barnala was alleged that Keemti Lal Jain also obtained Rs.16lacs from them which includes a sum of Rs.5lacs which was received by them through his son Raja and Renu Jain at Barnala. Marriage was performed on 26.3.2003 at Sangam palace, Barnala which was attended by Renu Jain and Mohinder Singh. They introduced them with Paramjit Kaur Mangat and the marriage was also attended by Major Singh, Gholuy and Seera besides a lady who represented herself as relative of Paramjit Kaur namely Swaranjit Kaur and Renu also introduced them with a middle aged male and female as father and mother of Paramjit Kaur. It was stated that after the marriage, Renu Jain took Paramjit Kaur with her for making arrangement for sending them abroad and obtained the signatures of Gundeep Singh on certain documents for registration of marriage at Barnala. Photographs of the marriage and films were also prepared. It was alleged that after waiting for considerable time and finding no progress in the case complainant and others met the accused in September, 2003 for sending Gundeep Singh in foreign country and thereafter Gundeep Singh was medically examined from Dr.Ahuja in Sutlej Hospital, Ludhiana and an Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 7 assurance was given by Raja and Muskan that within short period work would be done but later on they came to know by way of news item published in Des Sewak dated 11.11.2003 that said Keemti Lal Jain and others have duped many persons of lacs of rupees on the pretext of sending them abroad. It was alleged that accused have forged the documents and have cheated them and as such an action be taken against them. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the present case was registered against the accused. The investigation commenced. The accused was arrested. Statements of the PWs were recorded and after completion of the necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial. 3. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were supplied to him and on finding a prima facie case charge under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC was framed against the accused and they pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined Joginder Pal Singh (PW-1), Chamkaur Singh (PW-2), Ajmer Kaur (PW-3), Ajaib Singh Godra (PW-4), Ajaib Singh (PW-5), Pritam Singh (PW-6), Sham Sunder (PW-7), Ashok Kumar (PW-8) and Kewal Singh (PW-9) and closed the prosecution evidence. 5. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and claimed their innocence. They did not lead any evidence in defence except tendering some documents into evidence. Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 8 6. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused vide judgment and order dated 22.2.2011 sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as under :- 468 IPC Convict-Keemti Lal Jain to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month 120-B, IPC All convicts to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each and in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. 420 IPC convicts Keemti Lal Jain and Renu Jain to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each and in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. 420 IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC All convicts to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each and in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. 467 IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC All convicts to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. 468 IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC All remaining convicts to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 9 468 IPC Convict-Keemti Lal Jain to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month 471 IPC Convict-Keemti Lal Jain to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month 471 read with 120-B, IPC All remaining convicts to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused-appellant preferred appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, the said learned Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 12.7.2011. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and order, the present revision petition has been directed by the accused-appellants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below but has prayed regarding reduction in the quantum of sentence. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place more than eight years ago and since then the petitioners are undergoing the protracted trial. They are He is a young Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2011 10 person of 22 years of age and has been convicted only under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC. So, prayer has been made for reduction in sentence. 11. Prayer has been opposed by the learned State counsel. 12. I have carefully considered the said submission. 13. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of one month and twenty eight days as on 3.11.2011. He has been convicted under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC and the maximum sentence is six months. Out of that sentence, he has already undergone about 1/3rd of the sentence. He is facing trial for the last more than seven and half years.