IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No. 2464 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.12.2009 Jeeta Ram. ....... Petitioner through Shri R.S.Mamli, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Shri P.M.Anand, Addl.Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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 2.9.2009 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as `the appellate Court') vide which the appeal of the petitioner filed against judgment of conviction dated 4.10.2007 and order of sentence dated 5.10.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal (described hereinafter as `the trial Court') was dismissed. Crl.Revision No.2464 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as under:- 1. For offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; 2. for offence punishable under section 467 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; 3. for offence punishable under Section 468 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months; and 4. for offence punishable under Section 471 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All sentences were, however, were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.10.1999, a complaint was presented by complainant-Jasbira son of Giana, resident of Vikas Nagar, Karnal to the trial Court, which was referred to the Station House Officer,Police Station, City, Karnal, for registration of an F.I.R. and its consequent investigation as per law. According to the case of the complainant, the petitioner projected to him that he is owner in possession of some land and volunteered to sell the same to him. He entered into an agreement to sell dated 6.4.1999 and received an earnest money of Rs.15000/- in lieu thereof. This agreement was witnessed by the attesting witnesses. It was agreed inter se between the parties that the sale deed Crl.Revision No.2464 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... would be got registered as and when desired by the complainant, but when the complainant insisted on the execution of the sale deed, the petitioner resiled from his commitment. It was thereafter that the complainant made enquiry and came to know that one Surta son of Rai Singh was the actual owner of the land which had already been sold vide registered sale deed dated 18.1.1972. The complainant, thus, prayed that the petitioner should be proceded against for cheating and forging the document with intention to cheat him. After registration of the F.I.R., the investigation was initiated and on completion thereof, challan was presented against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. The trial Court charged the petitioner accordingly. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied his involvement in the alleged offences, but he did not lead any defence evidence. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner noticed hereinabove. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court were affirmed,which has resulted in the filing of the instant revision petition. Crl.Revision No.2464 of 2009 (O&M) -4- .... Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the out-set, contended that the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial for a decade for a paltry sum of Rs.15,000/-. He further contended that the intention of the petitioner to cheat the complainant is absent and if the statement of the complainant, who appeared as PW7, is to be perused, then it is evident that the petitioner had offered some other land in lieu of the land in question for sale, but the said offer was turned down by the complainant. He, thus, submitted that the bona fides of the petitioner are not entirely in doubt. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that in view of the fact that there was a clear intention to cheat which stood established on the basis of the evidence on record, the petitioner does not deserve any concession from this Court. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned judgment, as also the record of the case which was summoned. A perusal of the statement of PW7-Jasbir (complainant) reveals that the petitioner had, indeed, made an offer for giving some other land in lieu of the land regarding which the agreement to sell was executed by him. This offer was, however, not accepted by the complainant. This is the only mitigating factor in favour of the petitioner in an otherwise hostile set of evidence against him. There is no material on record from which it can be inferred that the petitioner was innocent. The land in question stood Crl.Revision No.2464 of 2009 (O&M) -5- .... already sold in the year 1972, whereas the agreement to sell the same was entered into by the petitioner with the complainant in the year 1999. The petitioner had, thus, clearly misrepresented to the complainant and had deprived him of the benefit of Rs.15000/- and thereby had cheated him. In any eventuality, learned counsel for the petitioner has hardly raised any dispute regarding the merits of the case and has merely stated that in view of the statement of the complainant admitting the offer of some other alternative land and the fact that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for the last ten years for a paltry sum of Rs.15,000/-, his case be viewed with some leniency. This Court, on examination of the plea of the petitioner, finds that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has faced the agony of the criminal prosecution for the last ten years and there was some offer on his part to compensate the complainant by offering some other alternative land, which offer was turned down by the complainant, the ends of justice would be squarely met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone by him subject to the condition that he pays a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Ordered accordingly. The said amount be deposited with the trial Court within a period of three months from today and the same shall be disbursed to the complainant after due verification. Failure to deposit the said amount shall result in automatic revival of the sentence imposed upon by the petitioner by the Courts below. Crl.Revision No.2464 of 2009 (O&M) -6- .... With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition is disposed of. All the pending civil miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of in view of the above. December 3,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge