Crl. Revision No. 1599 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1599 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2010 Shivcharanjit Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar vide judgment dated 15.1.2008. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rupnagar and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.3.2010. Hence, the present revision petition. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the trial Court in para 1 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- “ That brief facts are that accused executed a sale deed dated Crl. Revision No. 1599 of 2010 (O&M) 2 6.8.1999 in favour of complainant for land measuring 2 bigha 10 biswa being 1/2 share in khewat No.44, Khatauni No.70, Khasra No.250 (0-19) measuring 9 biswa and 1/2 share in khata No.61, Khatauni No.97, Khasra numbers 548/2/2 (0-3), 2728/17/2 (0-7), 256/2 (0-15), 257/2 (1-15) and (1-2) measuring 2 bigha 1 biswa for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/- situated in village Dhanauri, Tehsil and District Rupnagar. The accused received full consideration. That prior to execution of sale deed, complainant has inspected the records of rights and land was clear and sale deed was executed in favour of complainant and same was lateron presented before revenue authority for entering and sanctioning of mutation. That mutation was entered on 17.2.2000 and the same was forwarded by the Kanango Halqa for sanctioning of the same and mutation was entered at Sr.No.1960. The mutation No.1959 was sanctioned on 21.2.2000, wherein entry was made on 14.2.200. Mutation No.1961 was entered on 17.2.2000 and sanctioned on 21.2.2000. The complainant made enquiries and found that mutation No.1960 has not been deposited with the higher authorities after sanctioning the same and concerned branch gave in writing on 2.8.2000 that mutation No.1960 has not been deposited so far, whereas mutation No.1959 and 1961 were already sanctioned and produced. The Naib Tehsildar, Morinder without any notice to the complainant cancelled the sale deed produced by the complainant. The accused knowing fully well tht he had already sold the land and taking the benefit of non entry in the revenue record executed Crl. Revision No. 1599 of 2010 (O&M) 3 sale deed again in favour of complainant. This act of accused is fraudulent with an intention to cheat the complainant. The act of accused is of cheating, dishonest and wrongly delivered the possession to another person and therefore the complainant had to suffer a loss of Rs.1,05,000/-. The amount was received by accused dishonestly and also accused is liable for concealment of facts and dishonestly mis-appropriating the amount, so received fraudulently from the complainant. Therefore, accused committed an offence of criminal breach of trust. Hence, the present complaint.” During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amount in dispute i.e. Rs.1,05,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner with the treasurer of this Court. Petitioner is the only bread earner of his family and is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has no objection if the amount deposited by the petitioner is released to the complainant. Notice of the petition was issued to respondent No.2 but none has appeared on his behalf despite service. As per the custody certificate, placed on record by the learned State Counsel, petitioner has undergone 6 months and 15 days of actual sentence as on 17.9.2010. Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. Crl. Revision No. 1599 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner to already undergone by him. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Fine as imposed by the trial Court is stated to have already been deposited by the petitioner. The complainant-respondent No.2 would be at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- deposited by the petitioner. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) September 22, 2010 JUDGE Anand