Criminal Revision No.563 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.563 of 2009. Date of Decision : 22.3.2011. Brahm Parkash ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision arises from the following facts:- Brahm Parkash was Secretary of the Dalamwala Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited, Dalamwala (hereinafter referred to as 'Mini Bank'). On June 5 th, 1993 Ram Mehar-complainant (PW-2) a member of the Society deposited an amount of Rs.9000/- loan amount in the Mini Bank. A receipt bearing No.1833 was issued by the petitioner but the amount was not deposited in the Bank. The prosecution was launched on the statement of Ran Singh, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jind (PW-1). First Information Report No.278 dated July 10 th, 1999 under Sections 409 and 420 IPC was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Sadar, Jind. 2. The petitioner was charged under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution in support of its case examined Ran Singh, Assistant Registrar (PW-1), Ram Mehar (PW-2), Dhoop Singh (PW-3) and Mohinder Singh (PW-4). 4. In his examination recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Revision No.563 of 2009 2 the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied his complicity. 5. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind by judgment dated November 22 nd, 2007 convicted the petitioner under Sections 408 and 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under both the counts and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in each Section with default stipulation. 6. Aggrieved of the same, he filed an appeal. In appeal, Sessions Judge, Jind by judgment dated February 14 th, 2009 acquitted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but maintained his conviction under Section 408 IPC. Hence, the revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits rather prays for reduction of sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone, that is, 2 months on the ground that the amount in question has already been deposited. The petitioner has also been dismissed from the service on this account. He is the only bread winner of his family. He was never involved in any criminal activity before or after registration of the present case. 8. The grounds taken justify the request made so, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 22.3.2011. SN