Criminal Revision No. 1795 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1795 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.8.2009 Rakesh Danda ..... Petitioner vs State (Union Territory, Chandigarh) ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 226 dated 27.7.1995 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station, Central, Chandigarh. Briefly, the facts are that FIR in question was recorded on the application of Director Supply and Disposal Haryana with the allegations that on 14.7.1993 the petitioner had entered into a contract for supply of box fittings/ street light fittings to the complainant. The contract was valid for one year i. e. 13.7.1994 and a security of Rs. 75,000/- was furnished for the due performance of the contract. It was agreed that the security of the firm will be released after two months of the termination of contract by the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle PWD, B&R. Later on the complainant received a letter dated 29.11.1994 from the Superintending Engineer wherein it was stated that the firm had supplied all the material against the purchase order and nothing was pending against the firm and he had no objection if the security is released. Thereafter, the complainant released the security of Rs. 75,000/- to this firm. On 9.2.1995, an inspection note issued on 2.2.1995 was received in which the material offered for inspection was rejected. After that the matter was enquired into and it was found that letter dated 29.11.1994 was a forged one and the firm has got the benefit of release of the security on that basis. With these allegations, the abovesaid FIR was got registered on 27.7.1995. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented. He was charged for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No. 1795 of 2009 (2) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as fourteen witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Considering the unimpeachable evidence on record in the form of statements of eye witnesses, learned trial Court opined that the charges under Sections 420 and 471 IPC against the petitioner were proved beyond doubt and, accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo following sentence:- Under Section Sentence of rigorous imprisonment Fine In default rigorous imprisonment 420 IPC Two years Rs. 1,000/- One month 471 IPC One year Rs. 500/- 15 days As charges under Sections 467 and 468 IPC were not proved, the petitioner was acquitted of those charges. In appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld. Though, initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the findings of the Court below whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offences committed under Sections 420 and 471 IPC, however, finding it difficult in view of the statement of the persons who were the eye witnesses, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, he had faced agony of trial for about fourteen years and further that he has small family to support and being the sole bread-earner of the family should be extended the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. He further submitted that the petitioner will pay Rs. 75,000/- which were allegedly released to him on account of furnishing certain forged documents. He further submitted that the petitioner's firm has already been black listed for submission of any further tender. The payment for the goods supplied had also not been made to him. The petitioner has already suffered imprisonment for a period of more than two months after the rejection of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and has learnt a lesson. The incident pertains to the year 1994 and the FIR was registered on 27.7.1995. He has also placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Paul George vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 478, and judgments of this court in Sudh Ram v. State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 550; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 656; Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 579; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 310; Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 328 and Jai Ram v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 597. Criminal Revision No. 1795 of 2009 (3) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction of the petitioner. However, the factum of long trial, the petitioner being first offender, and sole bread-earner of the family are sufficient mitigating circumstances to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Keeping in view my above observation, the present petition is disposed of by holding that the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the imprisonment for the remainder sentence, the petitioner shall be released on probation on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh. The sentence of fine is converted into compensation of Rs. 15,000/-, which shall be deposited in the trial court within three months on receipt of copy of the order. He will also return back the amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the department. The petitioner is also directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 17.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge