IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1700 of 2006 Date of decision: 2nd December, 2011 Balkar Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioners, Balkar Singh and Gonda Singh, were convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Jalandhar vide impugned judgment dated 27th April, 2002 for offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B IPC, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The impugned judgment dated 27th April, 2002 was made a subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2002. The appeal was listed before the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar who on 8th May, 2002 had suspended the sentence of imprisonment and had summoned the file of the trial Court for 26th July, 2002. On 5th February, 2003, the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar had passed the following order: “It is not disputed that order of sentence by the learned Magistrate is not pronounced in accordance with Section 353 Cr.P.C. as no separate sentence under Criminal Revision No.1700 of 2006 Section 420 and 120-B IPC by the concerned has been passed. Therefore, appeal is sent back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar with a direction to pass an appropriate order under the law after re-hearing the case. Parties are directed to appear in said Court on 20.2.2003.” Case of the petitioners is that to comply with the above said order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar vide order dated 26th April, 2004 sentenced the petitioners as under: “I. Accused Balkar Singh is sentenced as under:- (i) U/s 420 IPC: R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. (ii) U/s 120-B IPC: R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for one month. II. Accused Gonda Singh is sentenced as under:- (i) U/s 420 IPC: R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. (ii) U/s 120-B IPC: R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently. File be consigned to the record room.” A grievance has been made that after the sentence was awarded, when appeal was listed, a fresh appeal viz. Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2006 was filed and in that appeal no opportunity was given to the petitioners to assail their conviction, as the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar held as under: 2 Criminal Revision No.1700 of 2006 “6. Admittedly the accused/appellants were convicted u/s 420 and 120-B IPC vide judgment dated 27.4.2002. The said judgment of conviction was neither set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in its order dated 5.2.2003 nor the appellants assailed the same in this appeal. So, the judgment of conviction has become final, the same remain un-challenged.” Counsel for the petitioners has stated at bar that he has scanned the entire record but there is no judgment available from which it can be inferred that conviction of the petitioners was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Learned counsel has further stated that except order dated 5th February, 2003 whereby the matter was remanded to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar; no order was passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Thus, it is submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioners has not been decided on merits till today. Counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert this fact. This Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, is of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the petitioners should have been decided on merits and the findings of conviction returned by the Court below ought to have been affirmed or set aside after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In these circumstances, order dated 21st July, 2006 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2006 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar to decide Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2006 on merits by himself or by assigning the same to any Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The petitioners through their counsel are directed to appear in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 16th January, 2012 and 3 Criminal Revision No.1700 of 2006 shall furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the appellate Court below. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 2, 2011 rps 4