Crl. Revision Nos. 1625 and 2434 of 2005 ::1:: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1625 of 2005 Date of Decision: April 07, 2011 Gurmit Kaur ---Petitioner versus Jaswant Singh and another ---Respondents Crl. Revision No. 2434 of 2005 Jaswant Singh ---Petitioner Versus Gurmit Kaur and others --Respondents. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Veneet Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner (In CRR. 1625 of 2005 and for respondent No. 1 in CRR No. 2434 of 2005) None for respondent No. 1 (In CRR No. 1625 of 2005 and petitioner in CRR No. 2434 of 2005) Mr. P.S.Paul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent -State *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner-accused, Gurmit Kaur, along with Hem Raj and Jaspal Singh, was tried for the offences under Sections 419, 467, 471 and 120- Crl. Revision Nos. 1625 and 2434 of 2005 ::2:: B IPC. They were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, vide judgment dated 24.3.2004 for the offences under Sections 419, 471 and 467 IPC and were sentenced as under:- Sr.No. Under Section Sentence imposed Fine 1 419 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year ` 1000/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for four months 2 471 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year ` 1000/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months 3 467 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years ` 3000/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. Against that conviction and sentence, they filed a joint appeal, which was decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide judgment dated 3.8.2005. Their conviction and sentence under Section 419 IPC was maintained whereas while maintaining their conviction under Section 467 IPC, sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them was reduced to one year. They were acquitted of the offence under Section 471 IPC. The present revision has been preferred by the petitioner-accused against that conviction and sentence. Jaswant Singh, petitioner complainant, has filed other revision (Crl. Revision No. 2434 of 2005), mentioned above, with the prayer that the sentence, so imposed upon the accused be enhanced. The origin of the case is the complaint filed by Jaswant Singh- respondent No. 1, against the said three accused and Babu Singh under Sections 415, 420, 467 read with Section 34 IPC. As per the version given in that complaint, Jaswant Singh, complainant, had two brothers; namely, Harpal Singh and Balbir Singh and Gurmit Kaur, accused was married to Harpal Crl. Revision Nos. 1625 and 2434 of 2005 ::3:: Singh, who had already died. Balbir Singh was missing and had not been heard of from the last more than seven years and there was presumption of his death. The complainant was the only successor-in-interest of that Balbir Singh, as he was unmarried and issueless. Accordingly, he made an application for the erasing of the name of Balbir Singh from the Revenue Record by moving an application to that effect before the Revenue Authorities. That application was contested by Gurmit Kaur, but she failed to produce Balbir Singh before the Revenue Authorities. She came up with the plea before the Assistant Collector, Dera Bassi, that Balbir Singh executed Will and Power of Attorney dated 14.8. 1989 in her favour. No such Will/Power of Attorney was executed by Balbir Singh. In fact some other person impersonated as such for forging those documents. These documents are purported to have been attested by Babu Singh, Hem Raj and Jaspal Singh, as witnesses. All those accused colluded with Gurmit Kaur in order to grab the property in order to cause a wrongful loss to the complainant. For proving the contentions, made in the complaint, the complainant produced preliminary evidence and from that evidence, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class found sufficient grounds for proceedings against all the accused under Sections 420, 467 read with Section 34 IPC. They were summoned accordingly, vide order dated 21.12.1995. On appearance of the accused, pre-charge evidence was produced by the complainant and from that pre-charge evidence, the JMIC found sufficient grounds for presuming that they committed offences punishable under Section 420, 467 read with Section 34 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, an opportunity was granted to the accused to further cross examine the witnesses, who had been examined by the complainant in pre-charge evidence. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They were called upon to enter on their defence but they did not produce any Crl. Revision Nos. 1625 and 2434 of 2005 ::4:: evidence in their defence. After going through the evidence produced on the record and hearing Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned defence counsel for the accused, the JMIC convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467/34 IPC, vide his judgment dated 16.8.1996. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal. In the appeal, decided by Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 24.8.2001, conviction and sentence of the accused was set aside and the case was remanded for retrial after framing the fresh charge, in view of the observations made in that judgment. From the records of the trial court, it appears that Babu Singh, accused, died during the pendency of the appeal. Fresh charge was framed against the other accused. Gurmit Kaur was charge -sheeted for the offences under Section 471 IPC and 467 read with Section 120- B IPC. The other accused were charge sheeted for the offences under Section 419 read with Section 120-B IPC and 467 read with Section 120-B IPC. An opportunity was given to the complaint to produce his evidence on the fresh charge framed against the accused. He did not produce any other evidence and closed the same. Additional statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the complainant, were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances. They were called upon to enter on their defence but they did not produce any evidence in their defence. After going through the evidence, so produced on the record and hearing Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned defence counsel for the accused, JMIC convicted and sentence the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 471 and 467 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused did not assail the Crl. Revision Nos. 1625 and 2434 of 2005 ::5:: findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. He submitted that the other accused preferred Criminal Revision No. 1493 of 2005 against that conviction and sentence before this Court, which was decided, vide order dated 14.5.2010 and in that revision, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon those accused, was reduced to the period already undergone by them. According to him, in order to maintain judicial uniformity, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the present petitioner-accused be also reduced to the period already undergone. According to him, this petitioner- accused has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for a period of about five months. The proprietary required that the present revision should have been decided along with said Crl. Revision No. 1493 of 2005. When the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the similarly situated accused has been reduced to the period already undergone by them, that relief cannot be refused to the present petitioner-accused, who has got one additional factor in her favour for taking a lenient view. She is a woman. No one has appeared on behalf of Jaswant Singh, complainant, in the other revision and, as such, the prayer made therein for enhancement of the sentence cannot be considered. Keeping in view all these facts, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner-accused, the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon her, is reduced to the period already undergone by her. Revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE April 07, 2011 PARAMJIT