Criminal Revision No.101 of 2004(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.101 of 2004(O&M) Decided on : September 27, 2010 Gursharan Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh and Mr.S.K.Chauhan, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General for respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 5.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad dismissing the appeal of Gursharan Singh – accused/petitioner (herein referred as `the petitioner') against the judgment 29.10.2001 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, convicting the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26.6.1980, the petitioner approached Punjab National Bank, Bithmara for a term loan of Rs.10,000/- and Gurbax Singh son of Ladha Singh r/o village Nangla, Tehsil Tohana, District Hisar became the guarantor. The loan was granted for the purpose of his business of poultry farm. After execution of necessary documents, two acres of land belonging to Jagga Singh – complainant was got mortgaged for the repayment of the above loan. When Criminal Revision No.101 of 2004(O&M) [2] the petitioner failed to repay the loan, the bank demanded loan from Jagga Singh, who then got the present case registered alleging that he never executed any guarantee or security in favour of the Bank. The petitioner in collusion with accused Tek Ram (already been convicted) and Gurbax Singh (Proclaimed offender and informed to be dead) impersonated the complainant before the Bank. On the aforesaid allegations, a case was registered, investigated and the accused were challaned. Consequently, the accused was charged for the offence under Section 420 IPC. In order to prove its version, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, a prayer for seeking indulgence on the quantum of sentence has been made. Even otherwise, records transpire that there is sufficient evidence on the file to prove that the petitioner Gursharan Singh got impersonated one Gurbax Singh to pledge the land of Jagga Singh – complainant for taking the loan amount from the Bank. The petitioner being beneficiary of the loan amount was certainly party to the crime. However, while considering on the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that Gurbax Singh, the main accused in the case, who was declared proclaimed offender had expired later on. Tek Ram, another co- accused convicted in the case was released on probation by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. It has not been disputed by the State that the Bank authorities had filed a civil suit against the accused, which was decreed. Records further reveal that the petitioner has paid the loan amount vide receipts Ex.DW2/A and DW2/B. On 26.3.1999, the Bank also Criminal Revision No.101 of 2004(O&M) [3] issued certificate Ex.DW2/C to him with regard to clearance of the amount. It has also come on record that vide letter No.74-EB-DM dated 4.7.1992 (Ex.D1), Home Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner, Administration of Justice had recommended for withdrawal of the case, though, no such permission was granted by the Trial Court. It is further noticed that the loan amount was received by the petitioner on 26.6.1980 and the case was registered against the accused on 26.1.1984. The sword of sentence has been hanging over his head for the last about 26 years. He was 50 years old at the time of the commission of crime and now he has grown up quite old having attained 76 years of age. It is also not disputed that the parties have compromised. Even the State also moved an application before the Trial Court for withdrawal of the case. The petitioner has also undergone 2½ months of the sentence, therefore, in these peculiar circumstances of the case and also to make on parity with accused Tek Chand, it would be in the fitness of things to extend a lenient view in the matter. Resultantly, I dismiss the petition modifying the impugned judgment to the extent that the petitioner is extended the benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for a period of one year within which period he will continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bonds, he will be ready to serve the sentence as and when called for. September 27, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE