IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No.1780 of 2009 Date of Decision: 2.9.2009 Darshan Singh. ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. ....... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri K.K.Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 8.7.2009 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') vide which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.9.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were upheld. The petitioner faced the prosecution under Sections 406 and Crl.Revision Petition No.1780 of 2009 -2- .... 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, `the I.P.C.') in a case registered vide F.I.R.No.68 dated 23.11.2001 at Police Station,Mulepur. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for both the offences and sentenced him as follows:- 1. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. 2. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for offence punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C. However, both the punishment were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court resulting in the filing of the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the out-set, contended that he is not addressing the Court on the merits of the case and is confining his submissions to the sentence only. He submitted that out of total substantive sentence of one year, the petitioner has already undergone one month and twenty four days' imprisonment as on today. It was further submitted that the petitioner is a first offender and, therefore, the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for brevity, `the Cr.P.C.') should be Crl.Revision Petition No.1780 of 2009 -3- .... afforded to him, especially when there is no previous criminal antecedent to his credit. On 17.7.2009, notice regarding sentence was issued to the respondent-State on the strength of the contentions that have been raised before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has contended that the case against the petitioner was proved by way of cogent evidence and, therefore, no leniency can be shown to him in the matter of sentence. However, he could not dispute the fact that the petitioner is a first offender and no other case is pending against him. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned judgment. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had obtained Rs.5000/- from each of twelve complainants, who chose to make complaint against him, on the pretext of sending them abroad. The complainants belonged to various villages and are not connected to each other which fact was also noticed by the Courts below to come to a conclusion that all the complainants were independent witnesses in their own right and consequently, their testimony could not be discarded. The conclusion, therefore, has been rightly arrived at by the Courts below and there is no merit in the revision petition. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a first offender and there is no criminal antecedents to his credit and keeping in view the fact that he has already undergone one month and twenty four days' Crl.Revision Petition No.1780 of 2009 -4- .... imprisonment out of total substantive sentence of one year, I deem it appropriate to release him on probation pursuant to the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., but, at the same time, I am of the opinion that the amount of fine by way of compensation should be enhanced to Rs.60,000/- out of which Rs.5000/- shall be paid to each of the complainants, who had been duped by him. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- 1. The conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the trial Court and as affirmed by the appellate Court shall remain intact. 2. In so far as the sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, the same shall remain in abeyance and instead, he shall be released on probation pursuant to the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. on his furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with a surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for keeping peace and for good behaviour for a period of six months. Simultaneously, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as fine which shall be deposited by him within a period of four months from today and on his doing so, the same shall be disbursed to the complainants in equal proportion, i.e., Rs.5000/- each. This amount of Rs.60,000/- shall not include the amount of fine already imposed upon him by the Courts below. 3. If the petitioner violates the above conditions of keeping Crl.Revision Petition No.1780 of 2009 -5- .... peace and of good behaviour and deposits Rs.60,000/- within the stipulated period, the sentence as awarded by the Courts below shall stand revived and he shall be required to serve the remaining portion thereof. September 02,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge