Criminal Revision No. 1570 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1570 of 1999 Date of Decision: 9.3.2010 Pritpal Singh and Others …Petitioner Versus The State through Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for Tehal Singh, petitioner. None for petitioners Pritpal Singh, Avtar Singh and Shingara Singh. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Ashish K. Gupta, Advocate for Harmail Singh, surety. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Mr. Ashish K. Gupta, Advocate, has produced Death Certificate of petitioner Avtar Singh, which is taken on record. Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate, has stated that except petitioner Tehal Singh, all the petitioners namely Pritpal Singh, Avtar Singh and Shingara Singh have expired. In view of the statement made by Mr. Dhandi, present revision petition qua Pritpal Singh, Avtar Singh and Shingara Singh stands abated. A report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, was Criminal Revision No. 1570 of 1999 2 called, which has not been placed on record by the Registry. In these circumstances, it is ordered that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, will hold an enquiry regarding the factum of death of Pritpal Singh, Avtar Singh and Shingara Singh. In case, it is found that they have expired, no reference shall be made to the Bench, otherwise the Registry shall revive the present revision petition qua Pritpal Singh, Avtar Singh and Shingara Singh. The Registrar (Judicial) shall monitor the receipt of report and follow up. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh shall submit the report within three weeks from today. Since the present revision petition has abated qua Pritpal Singh, Avtar Singh and Shingara Singh, this Court proceeds to decide the same qua petitioner Tehal Singh. Petitioner Tehal Singh was tried in case FIR No. RC.6/87 SPE CHG dated 26.3.1987 registered under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 465 IPC and was sentenced for an offence under Section 419 read with Section 120-B IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one and a half month. He was further sentenced, for an offence under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B, 468 and 471 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.750/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of three months, on all counts. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, Criminal Revision No. 1570 of 1999 3 the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. The prosecution case against the petitioners is that Avtar Singh and Tehal Singh had obtained two sale letters for truck chassis from Jasbir Singh and Inder Singh. Thereafter, both these petitioners along with Jang Singh and Shingara Singh had approached the United Commercial Bank, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, on 15.12.1981, for taking loan in the names of Jasbir Singh and Inder Singh. Petitioner Pritpal Singh had posed himself as Jasbir Singh, whereas Rajinder Singh as Inder Singh. They had filed two separate applications for obtaining loan of Rs.2,10,000/- each. The application filed by Pritpal Singh, posing himself as Jasbir Singh, was signed by Avtar Singh and Jang Singh, whereas the application of Rajinder Singh, posing himself as Inder Singh, was signed by Tehal Singh and Shingara Singh. For obtaining the loan fraudulently, the accused were put on trial. The fraud had emerged when the accused had failed to repay the loan. Both the Courts below had relied upon the evidence and gave a finding that petitioner Tehal Singh was guilty of the offence. Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate, appearing for petitioner Tehal Singh submits that though he is not in a position to assail his conviction, yet, he prays that offence, if any, had been committed in the year 1981 and a period of about 29 years is going to elapse. Three of the accused have expired. Petitioner Tehal Singh is aged about 75 years and is on the fag end of his life. He has already undergone a period of one month of actual sentence, out of the sentence of one year awarded to him. He had also not committed any other offence, before or after the registration Criminal Revision No. 1570 of 1999 4 of the present case. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner Tehal Singh is in the corridors of the Courts for the last about 22 years and the factum of old age and antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that sentence of one year awarded to him can be reduced to already undergone. However, the petitioner can be burdened with a fine so that the same can act as a deterrent. Accordingly, sentence of one year imposed upon petitioner Tehal Singh is reduced to already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the trial Court, within three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to petitioner Tehal Singh. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 9, 2010 “DK”