IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3275 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: September 22, 2011 Vinod Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora,Advocate assisted by Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused) against the judgment dated 24.5.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of `100/- under Sections 409/467/468/471 IPC, on each count. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the findings of conviction has submitted that the petitioner being the first offender and having already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence may be dealt with leniently on the quantum of sentence. Having heard the contention and examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the accused had forged the seal of the Bank and also misappropriated the amount of `12,26,751/- collected by him as registration fee. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. Crl. Revision No. 3275 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2002; the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then; he has already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence. As such, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him on the quantum of sentence. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year for each offence for which he was charged without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. September 22, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge