CRR No.409 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRR No.409 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.03.2011 Satpal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab for the State. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). Petitioner, alongwith co-accused, was found guilty under Sections 419/465/471/120-B IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 419 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 465 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo CRR No.409 of 2011 2 rigorous imprisonment for three months, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 120-B IPC. Appeal filed by the present petitioner against the aforesaid judgement, was partly accepted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 419 read with Section 120-B IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that the trial Court has recorded that prosecution has not been able to prove that appellant has signed the forged agreement. The trial Court further observed that it is also not proved that the appellant has received any earnest money pursuant to the forged agreement. The trial Court has further observed that it has not been proved that appellant Satpal Singh has impersonated as another person. Appellant Satpal Singh was held guilty only on the basis that he has identified the impostor as one of the co-owners. Custoday certificate handed over in Court today, is taken on record. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody for about three months during the pendency of this case and he has suffered a lot of embarrassment owing to the pendency of this criminal case. CRR No.409 of 2011 3 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The present case was registered against the petitioner, alongwith co-accused, for offence under Section 419/465/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The sword of Damocles is not to hangover the head of the petitioner for all times to come. He has suffered mental agony due to registration of this criminal case against him. The petitioner has already undergone sentence for about three months in this case. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of this case while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo sentence for the period already undergone by him in this case. With above mentioned modification in the matter of sentence, this revision petition is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 21.03.2011 sk.