Crl. Revn. No. 2282 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 2282 of 2002 Date of Decision : August 17, 2009 Kulwinder Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. P. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Petitioner Kulwinder Singh was tried in FIR No.23 dated 02.04.1998, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2002 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under :- Name of the Offence Sentence Fine In default convict Kulwinder Singh 420 IPC R.I. two years Rs.500/- One month Crl. Revn. No. 2282 of 2002 2 467 IPC R.I. two years Rs.500/- One month 468 IPC R.I. two years Rs.500/- One month 471 IPC R.I. two years Rs.200/- 15 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal preferred by the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide judgment dated 15.11.2002, acquitted the petitioner of the offences under Sections 467 and 468 IPC, but maintained the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. Feeling still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with others raised loan of Rs.2,20,000/- for purchase of tractor and Rs.25,000/- for crop by way of cash credit limit from State Bank of India. Land measuring 64 kanals 02 marlas was mortgaged against the said loan. Various other documents were also executed. Loan was advanced on 26.11.1996 and 05.12.1996. Mutation on the basis of the mortgage was also entered on 29.04.1997. However, on 13.02.1998, the petitioner produced a `no objection certificate' purporting to have been issued by the Bank, before Joginder Singh – Halqa Patwari and on its basis, sought redemption of mortgage of the land. However, the Patwari informed the bank officials and thereupon, it turned out that the petitioner had produced a forged `no objection certificate' before the Patwari as the said certificate had not been issued by the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that offence under Section 420 IPC was not completed because the petitioner could not succeed in his design in cheating the Bank. There is considerable merit in Crl. Revn. No. 2282 of 2002 3 the contention. The offence that was committed by the petitioner was attempt to cheat punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC besides offence under Section 471 IPC because the petitioner used as genuine a forged `no objection certificate'. In view of the aforesaid, conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC is modified to that under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC, while maintaining his conviction under Section 471 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner next prayed for reduction of sentence, keeping in view the conviction as modified above and also keeping in view the fact that the case is more than 11 years old. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel by submitting that the sentence imposed on the petitioner is not excessive even for modified offence. On 27.03.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjournment to seek instructions if the entire bank loan had since been liquidated or not. The case was adjourned to 21.04.2009. On that date, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had paid Rs.88,000/- to the Bank. However, learned State counsel, on instructions, stated that the petitioner paid Rs.83,500/- to the Bank on 29.12.2007 and even thereafter, a sum of Rs.2,20,882/- as principal amount besides interest, was still outstanding against the petitioner. Thereupon, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he had instructions from the petitioner to state that the petitioner shall clear entire outstanding loan amount of the Bank including interest within one month. The case was accordingly adjourned to 27.05.2009 and then again to 16.07.2009 on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. However, admittedly the outstanding amount of the Bank has not yet been cleared by the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the sentence of imprisonment for two years awarded to the petitioner under Section 420 IPC is reduced to imprisonment for 1½ years for offence under Section 420 read with Section Crl. Revn. No. 2282 of 2002 4 511 IPC while maintaining the sentence under Section 471 IPC. Both the sentences shall of course run concurrently as directed by the trial court. With modification in conviction and sentence as aforesaid, the instant revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. The petitioner, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence. August 17, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE