Crl. Revision No. 415 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 415 of 2010 Date of Decision :14.01.2011 Rajwant Kaur .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab. **** RITU BAHRI, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 12.6.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the judgment and order dated 24.2.2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot has been upheld, whereby the accused Rajwant Kaur has been convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 420 IPC. A complaint was made by accused Rajwant Kaur before DSP Vigilance Bureau, Faridkod against one Dr. Sohan Singh, Crl. Revision No. 415 of 2010 -2- Medical Officer, Medical College, Faridkod that Dr. Sohan Singh while posted as a Government Doctor demanded Rs. 500/- as bribe for the admission of her husbanded. on the basis of complaint of Smt. Rajwant Kaur, DSP Vigilance Bureau, Faridkod got registered FIR No. 72 dated 25.9.1997 (Annexure PW8/A). Dr. Sohan Singh was caught red handed leading to the recovery of bribe money through Ex. PA and proceedings of which were procured by means of Ex.PB, Ex. PC, Ex.PE, Ex. PF and Ex. PG and regarding this recovery site plan Ex. Ex. PW4/E was also prepared. Statements of PWs Sandeep Singh, R.K. Jain, Naib Tehsildar and Sub Inspector Kuwant Singh were recorded. It is in pursuance of the policy of the State Government, which has announced that any person assisting the State in curbing will be awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as reward and which the accused / appellant Rajwant Kaur received by virtue of draft bearing No. 707350 dated 11.9.1998 Ex. PW6/A, PW6/B and PW6/C and it subsequently transpired that the then complainant Rajwant Kaur, now appellant, had acted in a dishonest manner and with a view to cheat the Government of its valuable money has connived and did not support the prosecution in the corruption case and as a consequence of which ruqqa Ex. PW4/A and FIR Ex. PW4/B were got recorded against the accused Rajwant Kaur and the memo of grounds of arrest Ex. PW4/C, personal search Ex. PW4/D and memo regarding intimation of grounds of arrest Ex. PW4/E were prepared. Due to this illegal conduct of the accused, Doctor Sohan Singh was acquitted through judgment Ex. PW5/A. The investigating Officer investigated the allegations, recorded the statements of the Crl. Revision No. 415 of 2010 -3- witnesses and on completion of investigation challan against the accused Rajwant Kaur was presented in the Court. The Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkod vide order dated 16.2.2004, framed charge under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner / accused Rajwant Kaur, who pleaded not guilty an claimed trial. The prosecution at the trial examined PW1 Sandeep Singh, PW2 Kulwant Singh, Sub Inspector, Finger Prints Expert and PW3 Constable Harmail Singh, PW4 Baldev Singh Retired DSP and PW5 Ramesh Kumar, Record Keeper, Judicial Record Room, Faridkot. The prosecution further examined PW6 Naranjan Dass Bakolia from State Bank of Patiala, PW7 Ramesh Kumar Naib Tehsildar, PW8 then investigating Officer, DSP Jhilman Singh and lastly the prosecution examined PW9 Head Constable Harinder Singh and thereafter the prosecution closed its evidence. The entire evidence of the prosecution, which incriminated the accused, was put to her while recording her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the allegations of the prosecution taking up the plea of total innocence and false implication. The accused / petitioner in her defence examined DW1 Daljit Kaur, her sister and DW2 Joga Singh, Municipal Commissioner to prove the fact of disability of the family members of the accused and death of her husband through Ex. D1 to Ex. D3. It was after hearing the arguments the learned trial Court , the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkod through judgment / Crl. Revision No. 415 of 2010 -4- orders of sentence dated 24.2.2009, held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced her under Section 420 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appeal filed by the accused / petitioner was dismissed and conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Mr. P.S. Brar, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to take out any flaw in the investigation conducted by the prosecution. He argued that the accused / petitioner is a widow, she has get one handicapped son, who does not keep good health. She has spent 11 months and 6 days in judicial custody after conviction. Her case should be favorably considered for release on probation under the Probation Act, 1958. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab has placed on record the custody certificate filed by way of affidavits of Lakhminder Singh Jakhar, P.P.S-I, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur. As per this custody certificate the petitioner / accused has undergone 11 months and 6 days after conviction. After going through the judgments of the learned trial Court and the learned lower appellate Court, I am of t he considered view that both the judgments are liable to be upheld as they do not suffer from any impropriety or illegality. However, keeping in view the fact that the accused / petitioner Rajwant Kaur is a widow and she has a handicap son to look after and she is about 48 years of age, Crl. Revision No. 415 of 2010 -5- this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be released on probation. The petitioner has undergone 11 months and 6 days of actual sentence and she is a first offender. The above circumstances are sufficient to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed to the extent that the petitioner's conviction under Section 420 IPC is upheld and the sentence awarded to her is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the remaining part of sentence the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on executing probation bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. The petitioner is however, directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for one year. 14.01.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE