In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2003 Date of decision: 06.05.2009 Roop Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 15.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 2.5.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, convicting and sentencing him (Roop Singh) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 420 IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- under Section 506 IPC. Accused Balwant Singh and Hakam Singh (non petitioners) were convicted under Section 417 IPC and sentenced accordingly. It is pertinent to mention here that this petition is only by Roop Singh. The brief resume of facts is that the complainant Davinder Kumar (herein referred as 'the complainant') in his complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Talwandi Sabo disclosed that on 18.5.1999, Roop Singh took a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from Harcharan Dass Ram Kumar but he did not return the same despite repeated requests in that regard, ultimately he started for Talwandi Sabo to file suit, where Roop Singh, Janak Singh and Sewa Singh met him and persuaded him not to file the suit as they would settle the account by giving land. Consequently, they agreed to sell Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2003 -2- *** 10 marlas of land at the rate of Rs.1,70,000/- per acre for a total consideration of Rs.2,12,500/-. The remaining amount was to be paid in cash. It was further agreed that the complainant could get the sale deed executed in favour of any person and the sale deed would be executed directly in the name of that person. The deal was struck for the sale of land with Gurdial Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, Balwant Singh and Hakam Singh both sons of Gurdial Singh residents of village Chathewala at the rate of Rs.1,70,000/- per acre with the consent of Roop Singh. On 3.12.1999, Roop Singh executed the sale deed in favour of Balwant Singh and Hakam Singh both sons of Gurdial Singh. On asking for the amount, Roop Singh responded that he would pay the amount only if the complainant returns the pronote and further acknowledges by way of receipt that nothing remained outstanding against him (Roop Singh). As such, Roop Singh and his co-accused Balwant Singh and Hakam Singh (non petitioner) with their common intention and conspiracy procured the pronote and receipt on stamp paper from them. The vendors further told that they would make payment of sale consideration only when Roop Singh gives the demarcation of the land, whereas, Roop Singh was insisting that he be allowed to cut the trees from the land and thereafter he would give demarcation and possession of the same. Regarding remaining amount, Roop Singh assured to make payment subsequently. It has been further alleged that the land sold by Roop Singh was already mortgaged with Jagdev Singh son of Jaila Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered and investigated. The accused were arrested and on completion of the investigation challan against them was presented in the court. All the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 420/506 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined Davinder Kumar complainant (PW1), Makhan Lal (PW2), Ashok Kumar son of Babu Ram (PW3), Ashok Kumar son of Ram Kumar (PW4), Raj Pal (PW5), ASI Amarjit Singh (PW6), ASI Sarvijay Singh (PW7), Santokh Singh (PW8) and HC Dilbagh Singh (PW9). Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2003 -3- *** When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Balwant Singh and Hakam Singh further explained that they purchased 10 marlas of land from Roop Singh for a consideration of Rs.2,12,500/- but Davinder Singh and others wanted to grab this land as their brother was Deputy Inspector General of Police. Roop Singh further explained that he had sold 10 marlas of land to Balwant Singh and Hakam Singh on the asking of Davinder Kumar and others and the accounts were settled. In defence, they examined Budh Singh (DW1) and Albel Singh (DW2). Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Their appeal also failed. Only Roop Singh petitioner has come up in revision against the said judgment. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the sale deed was executed on 3.12.1999 but the complainant was before the Superintendent of Police after 1- ½ months i.e. on 15.1.2000. This delay not been explained by the prosecution. Having pondered over the aforesaid contention, I do not find myself in agreement with the same. It is a case based on the documentary evidence. It has been categorically deposed by the complainant that he went to the village of the accused for demanding money but they refused and that Balwant Singh and Hakam Singh (non petitioners) assured that as and when the petitioner (Roop Singh) gives the land to them after demarcation, they would make amount only then. Thereafter, when the complainant contacted the petitioner, then he replied that the entire payment would be made only after cutting the trees from the land. The complainant contacted the petitioner several times but no amount was paid. Ultimately, when the petitioner as well as Balwant Singh and Hakam Singh (non petitioners) refused to pay the amount and extended threats, the complainant lodged the complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. As such, the delay, if any, stands fully explained. Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2003 -4- *** Next limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the complainant being a literate person could not hand over promissory note and receipt without receiving the payment. The sale deed was executed in favour of Balwant Singh and Hakam Singh on the asking of the complainant himself, as such, the petitioner could have not gained anything from such registration of the sale deed. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the said argument and perusing the record, it may be observed that, no doubt Balwant Singh and Hakam Singh were named by the complainant and the sale deed Ex.DW1/A shows that the sale consideration was received in the house. Had they not connived with the petitioner, they would have made the payment of the sale consideration to the petitioner before the Sub Registrar so that the petitioner could make the payment to the complainant. Further more, sale deed, pronote and receipt were recovered from the petitioner which goes to show that the sale deed was merely a sham transaction just to defeat the valuable right of the complainant and his father. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner made the payment of the balance sale consideration to the complainant. As a last resort, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the same is shorn of any illegality much less irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the incident took place way back in the year 1999 and the petitioner has already undergone about six months of the substantive sentence. The sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then. He has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. No bad antecedents have been brought on record to dub him as habitual offender. As such, it would be in the fitness of the things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2003 -5- *** Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, the sentence awarded against the petitioner is modified to the extent that the same is reduced to nine months without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda for compliance. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim his remuneration as per rules. May 06, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge