IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1779 of 2004 Date of Decision : August 23, 2010 Mahabir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Ishwar Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Raja Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.5. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried in a private criminal complaint instituted by respondents No.1 to 4. Vide judgment and order dated 27/29.11.1996, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- on each count, whereas for the offence under Section 506 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The fine of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the petitioner there and then. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Revision No.1779 of 2004 -2- Against his conviction and sentences, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 21.8.2004. He then filed the present revision which was admitted on 1.3.2005 and he was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of his client. However, he has submitted that the petitioner had already returned the mortgage amount within 21 days from the date of filing of the complaint and, thus, no loss was caused to the complainant. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is facing the protracted criminal proceedings for the last more than 21 years. The petitioner is not a previous convict. He has already served a sentence of about 6½ months out of the sentence of three years imposed upon him. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner, after selling his land to the complainant, mortgaged the same with the bank while raising loan and, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances Criminal Revision No.1779 of 2004 -3- of the case, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, for undergoing the remainder of his sentences. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentences of the petitioner are reduced to that already undergone by him. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC is maintained. His substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by him. However, in addition to the fine already paid by the petitioner, he shall pay another amount of Rs.5,000/- as fine, which be deposited by him with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. (T.P.S.MANN) August 23, 2010 JUDGE satish