Criminal Revision No. 2295 of 2003 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2295 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.02.2010 Mithu Singh ..............Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ................Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr.M.K.Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana HARBANS LAL,J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 1.11.2003 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Mithu Singh accused against the judgment/order of sentence dated 6.7.2002 rendered by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga vide which he had convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 6 months. The facts in brief are that Gurbax Singh moved a complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga containing allegations that about four years back he gave a sum of Rs.3 lacs to the accused through Puppy of Faridkot for sending his son Shamsher Singh to America. Neither his son has been sent abroad, nor his money has been returned to him despite the fact that he had assured that if the work is not done, the money shall be Criminal Revision No. 2295 of 2003 (O&M) 2 returned alongwith interest. On the basis of this complaint, the case was registered. The accused was arrested in due course. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined ASI Tarwinder Singh PW-1, Constable Kewal Singh PW-2, Gurbax Singh PW-3, Shamsher Singh PW-4, Hakam Singh PW-5, Sub Inspector Satnam Singh PW-6, Sub Inspector Jagmit Singh PW-7 and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. In his defence, he has examined Ashok Kumar DW-1, and Palwinder Kumar DW-2. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset and acquitted him of the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by the courts below, he has preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not wish to Criminal Revision No. 2295 of 2003 (O&M) 3 assail the conviction in any manner. On analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the Courts below. Consequently,conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1997 and that being so, the sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. The learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the petitioner has undergone 95 days of the actual sentence. The petitioner while on bail during the pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (95 days) while maintaining the fine as well its default clause. With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE February 26, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No