IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2131 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 14, 2011 Ajaib Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J Initially three accused, petitioner Ajaib Singh (herein referred as, 'the accused') and two others, namely, Harjinder Kaur and Jaswinder Singh @ Jasjit Singh (non petitioners) were tried for the offence under Section 406/420 IPC. The trial court vide its judgment dated 22.1.2010 acquitted Harjinder Kaur, whereas, convicted the accused Ajaib Singh and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of `4000/- under Section 420 IPC. However, accused Jaswinder Singh alias Jasjit Singh absconded during trial and consequently he was declared as proclaimed offender. Appeal preferred by the accused was also dismissed by the appellate court vide its judgment dated 20.8.2011 and fine imposed upon him was also enhanced to `10,000/-. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the impugned judgment has urged that the petitioner is an old man of 62 years and is also suffering from various ailments, therefore, some leniency may be extended to him on quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. There is no denying a fact that the accused is a Travel Agent. There is sufficient evidence on the record to establish that the accused induced the complainant to part with `7,80,000/- on the assurance to send his son Avtar Singh to England, but he failed to fulfill his promise. He neither sent him to England nor he returned the money. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected warranting interference by this Court. As such, the findings Crl. Revision No. 2131 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** returned by both the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused stand affirmed. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel has sought indulgence of the court to seek leniency on the quantum of sentence. In view of the fact that the petitioner is an old man and is undergoing trauma of the protracted trial, though whole of the sentence cannot be wiped out, yet reduction in the sentence could be made out. Resultantly, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the instant petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to 1- ½ years without any alteration in the sentence of fine. September 14, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge