Criminal Revision Nos. 111, 112, 140, 179 and 185 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2002 Date of decision:6th January, 2011 Prabhash Chand Jain(in jail) S/o Late Shri P.S.Jain, R/o 7A, Rajpur Road, Delhi. .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through C.B.I., Chandigarh ........Respondent Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2002 Nem Chand Jain(in jail) S/o Late Shri Jai Kumar Jain, R/0 538, New Jawahar Nagar, Jallandhar City(Punjab) .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through C.B.I., Chandigarh .......Respondent Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2002 1. Balram Bhardwaj son of Brij Lal Bhardwaj, resident of 143- Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar 2. Avinash Chander Sharma, resident of House No. 66 Mohalla No. 26, Jalandhar Cantt. (Now both confined in Central Jail, Patiala) .......Petitioners Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh .......Respondent Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2002 1. Harcharan Singh, Sub Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, M.G.N. College, Jalandhar, R/o 41 Udham Singh Nagar Jalandhar Distt. Jalandhar. 2. Sudarshan Kumar Sharma, Accountant, Punjab & Sind Bank, M.G.N.College, Jalandhar R/0 1-B Dada Nagar New Model Town Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar. (Now confined in Central Jail, Patiala) .......Petitioners Criminal Revision Nos. 111, 112, 140, 179 and 185 of 2002 -2- Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2002 Suresh Kumar Jain son of Padam Parkash Jain, 32-Lal Kurti Bazar, Jalandhar Cantt.(petitioner is in jail) ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through C.B.I, Chandigarh .........Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Central Govt. Counsel for the respondent-CBI. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Ajay Tewari, J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 550-SB, 542-SB and 579- SB of 1995. I intend to dispose of the Criminal Revision bearing Nos. 111, 112, 140, 179 and 185 of 2002 in the same terms. In this order, the conviction of some of the petitioners was upheld but the fine was enhanced and the sentence was reduced to already undergone. As per learned Senior counsel for the petitioners Criminal Revision Nos. 111, 112, 140, 179 and 185 of 2002 -3- the present cases are identical. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate appearing for the CBI states that the only difference is that now letter has been received from the Bank whereby a sum of Rs. 49 crores still due against the petitioners. He has however, fairly conceded that for that amount, separate recovery proceedings are pending. Since apart from that there is no other distinguishing factor, therefore, I deem it appropriate to allow these appeals in the same terms as in the aforementioned Criminal Appeals (Crl. Appeal Nos. 550-SB, 542-SB and 579-SB of 1995). However, the fine is fixed at Rs. 3,00,000/- each, which would be equally shared by the petitioners. The amount of fine shall be deposited by the petitioners in the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations, Criminal Revision bearing Nos. 111, 112, 140, 179 and 185 of 2002 are disposed of accordingly. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE 6th January, 2011 Shivani Kaushik