CRR No. 2489 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 2489 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.11.2010 Tajinder Singh ........ Petitioner Versus CBI, Chandigarh .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. PPS Doabia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate for CBI, Chandigarh -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. Vide judgement/order dated 27.02.2006/28.02.2006, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh has convicted and sentenced petitioner- Tajinder Singh as under :- For offence under Section Sentence U/s 419 IPC -To undergo imprisonment for one year and fine of `1,000/- U/s 420 IPC -To undergo imprisonment for one year and fine of `1,000/- U/s 467 IPC -To undergo imprisonment for one year and fine of `2,000/- U/s 471 IPC -To undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of `2,000/- In default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two months. It is also ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. CRR No. 2489 of 2010 2 Thereafter, appeal was filed by the accused/petitioner against the aforesaid judgement/order of the trial Court. However, the same was dismissed vide judgement dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, CBI, Court, Chandigarh, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court under Section 420, 467, 471 of Indian Penal Code qua the present petitioner except the sentence awarded to him under Section 419 IPC was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, did not argue the case on merit. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he prepared bogus NOC i.e. police clearance report to RPO Chandgarh in favour of the accused, namely, Gursharan Singh although he was declared proclaimed offender and was involved in two criminal cases i.e. FIR No. 119 under Section 9 of Opium Act, PS Sarabha Nagar Ludhiana and FIR No. 310/86 under Section 302/395 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, P S Haldwani, District Nainital. His name also found figure in the list of terrorists. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgements rendered by both the Courts below, I feel that the petitioner has rightly not challenged the same on merits as the prosecution was able to prove the case against the present petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner was a constable in Police. He has been found guilty of offence under Section 467 IPC. The releasing of the petitioner on probation would not be proper. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Court below is upheld. However, taking into account that the case in hand pertains to CRR No. 2489 of 2010 3 the year 1986 and the petitioner already stand dismissed from service, the sentence awarded to the petitioner to undergo 1 year of imprisonment in each of the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and to run concurrently shall now stand reduced to 10 months in the said offence. Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit except for the modification in the sentence awarded to the petitioner as above. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 10, 2010 mohan