Criminal Revision No. 186 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 186 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.3.2010 Balbir ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Namit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Beniwal, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 419/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 16.3.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Panipat. Vide order dated 19.3.2007, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 419 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 420 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 467 IPC; to Criminal Revision No. 186 of 2010 (O&M) 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 468 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 471 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 120-B IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “ 2. That on 6.9.99 a complaint was received in Police Station from the court of Shri Manjit Singh, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat mentioning therein that in case titled as State vs. Kuldeep and others bearing FIR No.45 of 1997 under Sections 399/402 Indian Penal code, Police Station Samalkha, which was pending in that court, accused Kuldeep Singh was ordered to be released on bail. Kailasha son of Ghasi had stood surety for him and was identified by Pale ram son of Jagu resident of village Dahdola District Panipat in capacity of Member Panchyat. When accused Kuldeep absented himself from the proceedings of the court, after forfeiting his bail bonds notice was issued to surety Criminal Revision No. 186 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Kailasha. Kailasha appeared in the court and narrated that he had never stood surety for Kuldeep Singh accused and he had never submitted documents of his property. On 6.1.1999 an application was moved by Kailasha for comparison of his original thumb impressions with thumb impressions on the surety bonds. The said application was allowed by the court and the thumb impressions were sent to FSL Madhuban for comparison. On 27.2.99, report of FSL was received with the opinion that the standard thumb impressions of Kailasha did not tally with the thumb impressions on the surety bond. Several notices were issued by that court to identifier and Pale Ram son of Jagu, but he did not turn up intentionally before the court. Firstly his bailable warrants were issued and later on his non bailable warrants were issued. It was only on 24.7.99 that Pale Ram was arrested by the police of Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat and was produced before the court. After wards said Pale Ram made a statement before the court that in case State s. Kuldeep & others, FIR No.45 of 1997 dated 19.1.1997, he had identified Kailasha son of Ghasi as surety, but the person present in the court was not the same Kailasha son of Ghasi. In fact, Randhir Singh son of Mangat, resident of village Dahdola District Panipat had Criminal Revision No. 186 of 2010 (O&M) 4 impersonated himself as Kailasha son of Ghasi and he had identified him. 3. After receiving the complaint from the court of Shri Manjit Singh, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, a case was registered under Sections 467,478,471,419,420/120-B Indian Penal Code. Investigation was carried out. Accused were arrested. Record of the court of Shri Manjit Singh, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat was obtained. After completion of necessary investigation, challan was submitted in the court for trial.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already undergone one year, seven months and twelve days of actual sentence. Learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 419/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. As per the custody certificate placed on record the petitioner has undergone one year, seven months and twelve days of actual sentence. Keeping in view the fact that out of two years of rigorous imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone one year, seven months and twelve days of actual sentence, the sentence qua Criminal Revision No. 186 of 2010 (O&M) 5 imprisonment of the petitioner is liable to be reduced to already undergone by him Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Sections 419/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The fine, if not deposited by the petitioner, shall be deposited by him within two months from today failing which this petition shall stand dismissed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE March 05, 2010 anita