Crl. Rev. No. 2067 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Rev. No. 2067 of 2003 Date of decision : February 18, 2010 * * * * * Pakhar Singh ............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...........Respondent * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, AAG, Punjab. * * * * * JORA SINGH, J. Crl. Revision No. 2067 was instituted by Pakhar Singh to challenge the judgment dated 1.10.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Through this judgment, appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2000 passed by CJM, Kapurthala was dismissed. Prosecution story, in brief, is that in view of the letter Ex.PD written by Inderjit Singh, Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Kapurthala, FIR No.78 dated 18.5.96 was Crl. Rev. No. 2067 of 2003 [2] registered. Allegation was that Hari Singh and others filed claim application and the same was allowed for Rs.1,04,485/- against Pakhar Singh. Execution application was filed by Hari Singh to recover compensation. Notice was issued to Pakhar Singh. Pakhar Singh produced photocopy of the receipt dated 21.11.1995 in the Court on 30.4.1996. Hari Singh denied the execution of the receipt and filed affidavit to the effect that payment was not received. Jarnail Singh, marginal witness of the receipt also filed affidavit to the effect that he did not visit the Court on 21.11.1995 and no payment was made in his presence. Original receipt was not produced. After investigation, challan was presented. Accused was charged under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses i.e PW-1, Pawan Sharma, Advocate Kapurthala, PW-2, Inderjit Singh, Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Jalandhar, PW-3, Hari Singh, PW-4 SI Harbhajan Singh, investigating Officer and PW-5, Jarnail Singh, Sarpanch, Bhandal Dona. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. In defence, DW-1 Sukhjinder Singh, Documents and Handwriting and Finger print Expert, Patiala was examined. Ultimately, accused was convicted under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under: i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years Crl. Rev. No. 2067 of 2003 [3] and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 467 IPC. ii) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 468 IPC. iii)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 471 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Judgment/order dated 4.12.2000 passed by CJM, Kapurthala was challenged but vide the impugned Judgment dated 1.10.2003, appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that occurrence is dated 30.4.1996. At that time petitioner was 60 years old. Petitioner is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. Petitioner has affected compromise with the opposite party. Annexure A-1 is the compromise. In view of the compromise, case was disposed of by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kapurthala. Petitioner has already undergone more than two months of imprisonment. Impugned Judgment is not Crl. Rev. No. 2067 of 2003 [4] challenged on the point of conviction. Petitioner be directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone. Learned State counsel argued that parties have effected compromise. Petitioner is an old man. In view of the compromise, he has no objection if petition is disposed of. Hari Singh had filed claim application against Pakhar Singh and the same was accepted. In view of the order of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, execution application was filed and in the execution application receipt dated 21.11.1995 was produced by Pakhar Singh on the allegation that entire payment was made by the opposite party. Receipt was found to be forged one when Hari Singh and Jarnail Singh, marginal witness had denied the execution of the receipt against payment. At the time of commission of offence, petitioner was 60 years old that means at present he is more than 70 years old. Petitioner is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. Petitioner has affected compromise with the opposite party. Entire payment stands made as per order of Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Act. Compromise is dated 22.8.2004. This fact is clear from Annexure A-1, order of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 2.9.2004. Dispute between the parties is regarding money. Petitioner has already undergone more than 2 months of imprisonment. As per compromise, parties are to reside peacefully. Otherwise, there are chances of further litigation as both the parties Crl. Rev. No. 2067 of 2003 [5] are the residents of same village. In view of the law laid down in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3)Law Herald (P&H) ,2225, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. Instead of directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment as directed by the trial Court, sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. Fine maintained. Disposed of. February 18, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE