IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1910 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 27, 2009 Balram ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ashwani Gaur,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioner was convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 2.2.2002 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide judgment dated 3.9.2002. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:- “ 2. The prosecution version is that Vijay Kumar and Prem Kumar Criminal Revision No.1910 of 2002 -2- were cycle repairer on the pavement ner Peer at Ambala. In December, 1994 Naresh Kumar son of the accused came to them. He befriended them. He continued coming to them regularly. One day, he tried to convince them that they were having difficult life in earning their livelihood and if they wanted, he could help them in getting jobs from his father, allegedly a high ranking officer in the railway department. To convince them, he had also brought the person along who was wearing a black coat and white pant and was introduced as his father. That person also assured Vijay Kumar and Prem Kumar PWs that he could get them a job. He, however, expected them to shell out some gratification. 3. Prem Kumar gave Rs.5000/- to him on 19.12.94 at the railway station when the appellant/accused was also accompanied by his son Naresh Kumar. Similarly, Vijay Kumar (Complainant) paid Rs.10,500/- to Naresh Kumar on Swarn Chowk on 9.1.95. Neither the complainant nor his friend Prem Kumar got his job. They searched for the appellant for some time but become desperate later. They started searching the appellant for Naresh Kumar and his father. He could locate the appellant/accused who told them that he has already shunted out his son Naresh Kumar from his house. 4. FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant Vijay Kumar. Investigations were started. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested and released on bail. After completion of necessary investigation, the Criminal Revision No.1910 of 2002 -3- challan was produced against the accused." Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone more than seven months of actual sentence . Petitioner is 73 years old man and is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1995. Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of. (Sabina) Judge April 27, 2009 arya Crl. Revision No. 340 of 2002 * * PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,AAG Punjab * * * In the interest of justice, list again on 07.08.2009. ( Sabina ) Judge April 27, 2009 arya Crl. Revision No. 1684 of 2002 * * PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,AAG Punjab * * * In the interest of justice, list again on 08.05.2009. ( Sabina ) Judge April 27, 2009 arya Crl.Misc. No.20938 of 2009 and Crl. Revision No. 2243 of 2008 * * PRESENT: Ms.Rupinder K. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharath Sarup,AAG Haryana Mr.K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5 * * * Application is allowed. The main case is ordered to be heard along with Criminal Revision No.2583 of 2008 on 19.5.2009. ( Sabina ) Judge April 27, 2009 arya Crl. Misc. M No. 43778 of 2004 * * PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,AAG Punjab * * * Notice could not be issued to respondent No.2 as the process fee is not deposited. Let fresh notice be issued to respondent No.2 on deposit of process fee for 20.5.2009. ( Sabina ) Judge April 27, 2009 arya Crl. Misc. M No. 34325 of 2007 * * PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,AAG Punjab * * * Notice could not be issued to respondent No.2 as the process fee is not deposited. Let fresh notice be issued to respondent No.2 on deposit of process fee for 20.5.2009. ( Sabina ) Judge April 27, 2009 arya Crl. Misc. M No. 43075 of 2007 * * PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,AAG Punjab * * * Notice could not be issued to respondent No.2 as the process fee is not deposited. Let fresh notice be issued to respondent No.2 on deposit of process fee for 20.5.2009. ( Sabina ) Judge April 27, 2009 arya Crl. Misc. M No. 43076 of 2007 * * PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,AAG Punjab * * * Notice could not be issued to respondent No.2 as the process fee is not deposited. Let fresh notice be issued to respondent No.2 on deposit of process fee for 20.5.2009. ( Sabina ) Judge April 27, 2009 arya