IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1126 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.09.2011 Parbhu and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 22.7.1999 and that of Appellate Court dated 6.2.2003. The petitioners were accused of having impersonated the real owners and got prepared the document which had the effect of leasing out the land of the true owners for a period of 99 years in favour of one Nahar Singh. The trial Court convicted and sentenced them as under:- Offence Imprisonment U/s 468 IPC R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for a period of two months. U/s 471 IPC R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 100/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for a period of one month. U/s 420 IPC R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.50/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. U/s 419 IPC R.I. for 8 months. U/s 120-B IPC R.I. for 4 months. Crl. Rev. No. 1126 of 2003 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contends that without adverting to the merits of the case he confines his argument only to the plea that the petitioners had faced the proceedings for a period of almost 26 years. FIR was registered in June 1986 and during the pendency of the proceedings one of the petitioner namely Phula Ram has undergone his entire period of sentence while remaining accused persons have undergone about 7 months of the total sentence awarded to them. He has further contended that petitioners were not beneficiaries and even the facts which have come on record suggest that the FIR was registered after six months of the complainant having acquired the knowledge of the alleged fraud. He thus contend that keeping in view the totality of the circumstances the petitioners deserve some leniency. The prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the State who has contended that it is a case where the petitioners have by implication also admitted their guilt when they revoked the lease deed. After due consideration of the matter, this Court notices that petitioners have faced the consequences of criminal prosecution for the last 26 years and further that they were not beneficiaries and the lease deed allegedly forged was also revoked soon thereafter, whereas FIR came into existence almost six months after the revocation. That apart noticing the number of years gone by the petitioners would also have advanced in years and, therefore, noticing all these facts cumulatively, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to face the consequences of the Crl. Rev. No. 1126 of 2003 (O&M) 3 imprisonment at this stage. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellants to that of they have already undergone. Ordered accordingly. Petition is disposed of. (MAHESH GROVER) 26.09.2011 JUDGE reena