Criminal Revision No.218 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Criminal Revision No.218 of 2006 Date of Decision : 10.3.2011. Arjun Dass ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent (2) Criminal Revision No.219 of 2006 Date of Decision : 10.3.2011. Satnam Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent (3) Criminal Revision No.311 of 2006 Date of Decision : 10.3.2011. Babu Ram ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for, Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate, for Arjun Dass-petitioner. Mr. N. K. Sanghi, Advocate & Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for Satnam Singh-petitioner. Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for Babu Ram-petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This judgment would dispose of above mentioned three revisions filed by Arjun Dass, Satnam Singh and Babu Ram- petitioners because they have arisen out of judgment dated January Criminal Revision No.218 of 2006 2 19th, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 19th, 2001 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirsa, whereby, they were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 420 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.400/- RI for 15 days 467 IPC RI for 3 years Rs.500/- RI for 20 days 468 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.300/- RI for 12 days 471 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- RI for 20 days 120-B IPC RI for 1 year Rs.300/- RI for 12 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Allegations, in brief, against the petitioners were that they identified 12 persons when they filed applications in the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirsa for getting their armed licences renewed. The applications were duly attested by the Notary/Oath Commissioners, Sirsa. The petitioners were private Typists in the Judicial Court Complex, Sirsa. The applications were forwarded to the Station House Officer, Police Station City, Sirsa seeking no objection certificate. The SHO issued no objection certificate as finds mention in the application and the statement of Sh. R.S. Doon, the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirsa. Out of those 12 persons, Nasim Ahmad was also challaned along with the petitioner but he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa by observing that at the relevant time he was residing at Sirsa. With regard to the remaining 11 persons, no evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that at that point of time they were not residing at Sirsa. However, petitioners also could not lead any evidence to prove that those persons were known to them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners do not challenge the judgment of conviction and only prays for reduction of sentence. 4. The grounds pleaded are that, (i) the allegations against the petitioners were that they only identified the persons who filed the applications for getting their armed licences renewed; (ii) Criminal Revision No.218 of 2006 3 they are the sole bread winners of their respective families; (iii) they have already faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of more than 15 years; (iv) they were not charged or challaned in any case prior to or after registration of the present case; (v) they have undergone actual sentence of two months; (vi) they are the first offenders and; (vii) Arjun Dass and Babu Ram-petitioners are in their 70s. Arjun Dass is also patient of paralysis. 5. The numerous grounds taken cumulatively justify the request made so, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but is inclined to reduce the sentence. It is further of the opinion that ends of justice shall be met if the petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and orders accordingly. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 10.3.2011. SN