Criminal Revision No.2090 of 2004 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.2090 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.5.2009 Amarjeet Singh @ Mikka ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. Mr.N.S.Behgal, Advocate for Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate, for the complainant. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) vide judgment dated 8.5.2001 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa. Vide order dated 9.5.2001, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to Gurmeet Singh, husband of the complainant, as compensation within a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 4.10.2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. Hence, the present Criminal Revision No.2090 of 2004 (O&M) 2 revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Brief facts of the case are that on 3.11.1996 Smt.Sukhvinder Kaur, complainant made a written complaint Ex.PC to police for taking legal action against Amarjeet Singh accused-appellant, upon which the present FIR was recorded. Complainant alleged in her complaint that accused allured and promised them to send abroad against payment of Rs.1,08,000/- and they would be able to earn huge money in short duration of time there. Accused induced them dishonestly to deliver the said sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- which they paid to him on 9.4.1994 and thereafter, he absconded to Labnon. Now for the last one month, accused had come to India and when they contacted him to return their money, he threatened them with dire consequences, if they tried to convene any panchayat or raised demand for return of their money. Police after registration of the case, arrested the accused and undertook investigation. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Certain documents were taken into possession and after completion of investigation, submitted the final report to the Court for trial of accused under Section 420 IPC.” Criminal Revision No.2090 of 2004 (O&M) 3 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. the amount of compensation, with the trial Court in terms of the order of this Court dated 10.1.2005 and the petitioner has no objection if the same is released to the complainant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to as already undergone by him as the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of about six months and he is not a previous convict. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is liable to be reduced to as already undergone by him. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC is maintained. However, his sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to as already undergone by him. The amount of compensation deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court in terms of the order of this Court dated 10.1.2005 is ordered to be released to the complainant forthwith. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE May 28, 2009 anita