Criminal Revision No. 418 of 2006 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Revision No. 418 of 2006 Date of Decision: 04.03.2011 Sukhpal Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent 2. Criminal Revision No. 419 of 2006 Sukhpal Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent 3. Criminal Revision No. 420 of 2006 Sukhpal Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent 4. Criminal Revision No. 421 of 2006 Sukhpal Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (Oral) This judgment would dispose of above named four revisions as they have arisen out of judgment dated February 3rd, Criminal Revision No. 418 of 2006 2 .. 2006 of Sessions Judge, Ferozepur affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 29th, 2004, whereby, petitioner was convicted under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation in each case. 2. Vide First Information Report No. 266 dated May 8th, 1986 under Section 408 IPC registered in Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur, four separate challans were filed. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits and confines his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. The grounds pleaded are that, (i). the petitioner was working as Inspector in Food and Supplies Department, Punjab and was on deputation with PUNSUP, when shortage of wheat and other articles viz. crates etc. was found (ii). he has already been dismissed from service (iii). he has also lost the vision of his eye, as finds mention in Medical Report dated 24.4.2008 (Annexure P/1); (iv). he has undergone actual sentence of 3 months and 22 days; and (v). he has suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 25 years. 4. The numerous grounds taken cumulatively are mitigating circumstances so this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but is inclined to reduce the sentence. It is further of the opinion that ends of justice shall be met if the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and orders accordingly. 5. The revisions are accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 04.03.2011 som