IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Criminal Revision No.998 of 2000 Date of Decision: 4.2.2011 Rameshwar Dass ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent (2) Criminal Revision No.1084 of 2000 Date of Decision: 4.2.2011 Risal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent (3) Criminal Revision No.1085 of 2000 Date of Decision: 4.2.2011 Risal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent (4) Criminal Revision No.1086 of 2000 Date of Decision: 4.2.2011 Risal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. P.S. Goraya, Advocate, for Rameshwar Dass-petitioner. Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for Risal Singh-petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate, for the complainant. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This judgment would dispose of above titled four revision petitions arising out of four judgments dated August 14th, 2000 (Challan No.1 to IV) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal partly accepting the appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence dated December 17th, 1994 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal. 2. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 201 IPC RI for 6 months Rs.500/- SI for 1 month 468 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- SI for 3 months 471 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- SI for 3 months 120-B IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- SI for 1 month Besides, accused Risal Singh was also convicted under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation by JMIC. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction of petitioners but reduced the sentence under Section 408 IPC from 3 years to 2 years. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently in all the challans. 3. First Information Report No. 301 dated June 11th, 1979 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 408, 468 and 471 IPC in Police Station Pundri. However, in the said FIR, three separate charge-sheets/challans were filed by the prosecution. The evidence was recorded in one of the challan. 4. Learned counsel for Risal Singh-petitioner has stated that he does not challenge his conviction rather has urged that sentence imposed upon him be reduced to the period already undergone on the grounds that, (i) petitioner is in his 70s; (ii) he has undergone actual sentence of more than 4 months; (iii) he has suffered agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 32 years; (iv) he is at the fag end of his life; (v) he is not keeping good health; (vi) he has served the department for 22 years; (vii) no case was registered against him prior to the registration of present case or thereafter and; (viii) the period already undergone by him is sufficient. 5. Sh. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate, learned counsel for Rameshwar Dass-petitioner has urged that, (i) petitioner is in his late 60s; (ii) the only role attributed to him was that he audited the record of the Pundi Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Society and had nothing to do so far as misappropriation is concerned; (iii) he served the Cooperative Department of State of Haryana for about 30 years and during this long tenure, he never faced any trial, inquiry or complaint except the present case and; (iv) he has faced protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of 33 years. 6. Learned counsel representing the Marketing Society has not opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 7. The aforesaid circumstances are of mitigating nature and justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by them. 8. The revision are accepted partly as indicated above. 4.2.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE