IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.307 of 2003 Date of decision: 10th February, 2010 Jaswant Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate with Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Jaswant Singh son of Gurdev Singh, Gurpreet Singh son of Harnek Singh, Amar Singh alias Amarjeet Singh son of Jagdev Singh and Harnek Singh son of Sada Ram, all resident of village Hathoor, Tehsil Jagraon district Ludhiana. These accused were prosecuted in a private complaint instituted by Sukhdev Singh brother of Harnek Singh petitioner. The complainant had set out a grievance that he was having a joint land with accused Gurdev Singh and in year 1986, he was employed in Dubai. Taking benefit of absence of the complainant, accused hatched a conspiracy and got prepared a forged and fabricated report on 27th October, 1986. The report was entered by the Patwari at Sr. Criminal Revision No.307 of 2003 No.65. Upon this report, signatures of the complainant and his minor sons were forged and fabricated. According to Mr.S.K. Bawa, appearing for the petitioners, the trial Court has convicted the petitioners on the ground that they were beneficiaries of the forged report recorded in the roznamcha. The trial Court convicted the petitioners under Section 419, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. The accused petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 419 and 465 IPC. However, they were awarded one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 468 and 471 IPC. On both counts, a fine of Rs.200/- each was also imposed, in default of payment of which, petitioners had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Aggrieved against this judgment, petitioners had filed an appeal. The appellate Court upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. Counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer in a very narrow compass. He has prayed that in the present case, occurrence pertains to year 1986, when report entry Ex.P1 was made in the roznamcha register. Counsel has submitted that about 24 years are going to elapse. The complaint in the present case, was filed on 11th September, 1989. Petitioners are in the corridors of the courts from last more than two decades. It is further submitted that taking the protracted trail and long pendency of the case, sentence awarded upon the petitioners may be adequately reduced. Taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence had taken place about 20 years ago and petitioners have already suffered 2 Criminal Revision No.307 of 2003 mental pain and agony of protracted trial, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioners under Section 468 and 471 IPC is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. With the modifications in sentence noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. Sentenced awarded on various counts shall run concurrent. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 10, 2010 rps 3