Criminal Revision No.945 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.945 of 2001 Date of Decision: September 10, 2010 Darshan Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.GS Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.JS Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of eleven criminal revisions i.e. Crl.R.Nos.945, 948, 950, 954, 956, 957, 958, 960, 963, 965 and 967 of 2001 as the same have arisen out of a common judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur (hereinafter referred as “Appellate Court”). However, the facts are being taken from Crl.R.No.945 of 2001. 2. The petitioner was tried by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”), under Section 408 of the Criminal Revision No.945 of 2001 -2- Indian Penal Code for the embezzlement of the total amount of Rs.4,85,499.75 while being Secretary of the C.A.S.S. Chaunda by committing fraud with the members of the Society at the time of advancing amount by showing wrong figures in the cheques of the members of the Society. 3. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Court and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 4. On appeal, the learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, these revision petitions. 5. At the time of hearing of these revision petitions, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, vide order dated 9.7.2001. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below on merits and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence mainly on the ground that the present petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial for about 13 years. The petitioner is stated to have already undergone sentence for about two months. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that since offence is proved, so no leniency should be shown. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has suffered the agony of protracted trial for about 13 years and has left himself at the mercy of the Court, his conviction under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code stands maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is Criminal Revision No.945 of 2001 -3- reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.12,000/- in lump sum, (in all the revision petitions) to be deposited by the petitioner with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, which shall go to the State as litigation expenses. In case of non- payment of amount of enhanced fine, the present revision petitions shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 9. With the above modification/direction, the present criminal revisions stand disposed of. 10. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) September 10, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No