Criminal Revision No. 938 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 938 of 1997 Date of Decision: 6.5.2008. Baljit Singh …Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. P.S.Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the respondent-U.T. Chandigarh. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Baljit Singh son of Prem Singh was convicted by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, for offence under Sections 471 and 420 IPC in case FIR No. 333 dated 11.5.1982 registered at Police Station Central, Chandigarh, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 473 IPC. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous for one month. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine to Criminal Revision No. 938 of 1997 2 further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appeal preferred was dismissed. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had responded to an advertisement issued by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, for the post/course of Stock Assistant/Veterinary Compounder in November 1980. Case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had submitted a matriculation certificate bearing Roll No. 130249 of September 1978. When this certificate was verified from the Punjab School Education Board, the same was found to be forged. Mr. P.S.Hundal, learned senior counsel appearing along with Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that since two Courts have relied upon the two witnesses examined by the prosecution and have returned a unison finding, found the petitioner to be guilty, he will not contest his conviction but submitted that in the present case when the offence was committed, the petitioner was young man who could not apprehend consequences of the act for which he was tried. He has further submitted that certificate was submitted in the year 1980 and 28 long years are going to elapse. He has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of 28 years. It was further submitted that in the head note of the judgment of trial Court, age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 30 years and during the course of his trial, he has been fastened with many liabilities including his family and his daughters are of marriageable age. It is further submitted by Mr. Hundal that in case petitioner is sent now behind the bars, the same will eclipse the matrimonial prospects of his Criminal Revision No. 938 of 1997 3 daughters. It is further submitted that in the last 28 years, the petitioner has been leading a life of honest and peaceful citizen and has committed no offence. It has been further submitted by Mr. Hundal that taking into consideration that the offence was committed by the petitioner in his youth when he could not understand the consequences which will ensue, protracted trial, family liabilities and antecedents of the petitioner, this Court should be lenient and should not send the petitioner behind the bars. He has further submitted that sentence of fine may be enhanced. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Hundal, I find merit in his contentions and I am of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence of petition is reduced to already undergone and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Mr. Hundal has stated that the petitioner has already undergone one month and ten days of his actual sentence out of sentence of two years. Accordingly, sentence of petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-, which shall be paid in the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 6, 2008 “DK” Criminal Revision No. 938 of 1997 4