Criminal Revision No.1855of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1855 of 2004 Decided on 14.12.2011. Kamal Kapoor ...... Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .. .... Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present :- Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, AAG, Punjab. K.C.PURI, J. This is revision petition against the judgment dated 15.9.2004 passed by Shri P.P.Singh, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Fast Track Court -II, Hoshiarpur vide which the appeal preferred by the accused- petitioner against the judgment and order dated 5.8.2002 passed by Mrs. Harveen Bhardwaj, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.7.1994 an application dated 12.7.1994 was received in the police station City Hoshiarpur from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur and on the basis thereof, FIR in question was got registered. Complainant alleged in the said complaint that he had purchased one scooter bearing registration No. PCH –8724, Engine No.890314, Chassis Criminal Revision No.1855of 2004 2 No.853624 from Phillaur for a sum of Rs.14,000/- and for getting registration certificate ( in short - RC) of the said scooter transferred in his name he handed over the RC to Kamal Kapoor accused-petitioner, who is working as Clerk with some Advocate in the District Courts, Hoshiarpur. Kamal Kumar kept the said RC with him for a period of about ten months and he then got it transferred in his name and took Rs.600/- from him. After two months, the scooter was stolen from State Bank of Patiala, GT Road, Phagwara and the report regarding the theft of the scooter was got lodged in the police station city, Phagwara. The scooter, which was fully insured, was not recovered. The matter was also lodged with the Insurance Company. After about five months, the surveyor of the Insurance Company had asked the complainant to get duplicate copy of the RC of the scooter, he came to know that scooter has not been transferred in his name. Then the complainant had suspicion on Kamal Kapoor that he has got affixed false stamps on the RC and got the same transferred in his name. The complainant reported the matter to the Panchayat of village Pandori Kad and accused- petitioner was called by Sarpanch and he was enquired about the said matter. He told that he had got the scooter transferred in the name of Paramjit Singh and would get duplicate copy of registration prepared within a week. After a week, Kamal Kapoor told the Sarpanch that for preparation of duplicate RC, Rs.1200/- would be spent. Sarpanch took Rs.500/- from the complainant and gave the same to Kamal Kapoor and the remaining amount was to be given after the RC was got prepared. Thereafter, for a period of two months, Kamal Kapoor had been making pretext that the DTO is on leave and at sometime, he told that his clerk is on leave. After 2/3 Criminal Revision No.1855of 2004 3 months, he told the Sarpanch that the said number is not of the scooter. This number is of Luna. The Sarpanch took Rs.500/- from him but he did not return the papers. In reality, Kamal Kapoor had prepared the false stamps of the office of DTO and had transferred the RC in his name. In the same manner, he prepared the driving licences and got the same renewed for the other persons. Investigation commenced. The accused was arrested. After completion of usual investigation, aforesaid accused was sent to the court for commission of aforesaid offence. 3. On presentation of the challan by the police, the learned trial Magistrate, complied with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., and finding a prima facie case for offence punishable under Section 420, 465, 471 IPC, charges were framed against the accused-petitioner, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove its case the prosecution has examined Paramjit as (PW-1), Uffan Shakir as (PW-2), Narang Singh as (PW-3), Vijay Kumar as (PW-4 ), Jarnail Singh as (PW-5), Vinod Kumar as (PW-6 ), ASI Amrik Singh as (PW-7), HC Tirath Ram as (PW-8) and closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. However, the accused did not opt to lead any defence evidence. 6. The learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty under Sections 420, 465 and 471 IPC vide judgment and order dated 5.8.2002 convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he Criminal Revision No.1855of 2004 4 would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 420 IPC ; to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 465 IPC and to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 471 IPC. 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment of conviction, the convict/accused has preferred the appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Fast Track Court -II, Hoshiarpur, who dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 15.9.2004. 8. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and order, the present revision petition has been filed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below but has submitted that the occurrence relates to the year 1994 and, as per conviction slip, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of four months and two days . There is no other case pending against the petitioner, as per conviction slip. The petitioner is facing trial for the last more than seventeen years. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has taken few hundred rupees from the complainant for transfer of registration of vehicle. So, prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence. 11. The prayer has been opposed by the learned State counsel. 12. I have carefully gone considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. Criminal Revision No.1855of 2004 5 13. FIR in the present case was registered on 23.7.1994 and since then the petitioner is facing protracted trial i.e. for the last more than seventeen years. As per conviction slip, he has undergone incarceration for a period of four months and two days out of the substantive sentence of two years. As per conviction slip, he is on bail since 18.12.2004 and no other case is pending against him nor he has been convicted in any other case. So, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone. However, his sentence of fine stands affirmed. 14. With the above said modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 15. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. December 14, 2011 ( K.C. PURI ) sv JUDGE