IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2002 Shri Raj Bihari Lal alias Arjun Bhatnagar S/o late Sri Bankelal R/o 18 / 20 Khatima, P.S. Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal / Uttarakhand. 2. Bakhshish Singh S/o Thakur Singh R/o Vilalge Berighat, Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. None present for respondent No. 2 even after being served sufficiently. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge II, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2000, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court (Judicial Magistrate, Khatima) against the revisionist Raj Bihari Lal @ Arjun Bhatnagar, relating to offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. The trial court had sentenced the revisionist to undergo rigorous 2 imprisonment for a period of two years, and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3) Prosecution story in brief is that on 16.04.1994, accused / revisionist Raj Bihari Lal @ Arjun Bhatnagar took loan of Rs. 1,68,000/- from Bakhshish Singh (respondent No. 2) stating that he is owner of the shop situated in Ward No. 10, Police Station Bazaar, Khatima. It was also promised by the accused / revisionist that he will repay the amount of loan within a period of six months, and if he failed to repay the loan, he would handover the possession of said shop to respondent No. 2. It is alleged by respondent No. 2 that after lapse of period of six months when he sought repayment of the loan, the accused / revisionist tried to evade him on one pretext or another. It is stated that neither the loan was repaid, nor the shop in question was handed over to him. Later, the respondent No. 2 came to know that said shop was owned by cousin of the accused / revisionist, and he (Raj Bihari Lal @ Arjun Bhatnagar) was only his tenant. The trial court (Judicial Magistrate, Khatima) recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and that of the witness under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., summoned the accused and recorded evidence. After hearing the parties, the trial court found the accused Raj Bihari Lal @ Arjun Bhatnagar guilty of the charge of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. After 3 hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 29.02.2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, in Criminal Case No. 1051 of 1995, the convict preferred Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2000. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge II, Udham Singh Nagar, vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2002, dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. Hence, this revision. 4) I have gone through the record of the case. Complainant Bakhshish Singh (respondent No. 2) has narrated the prosecution story that the accused took loan of Rs. 1,68,000/- from him on the promise that the same would be repaid within six months. It was also promised that if the accused failed to repay the loan he would handover the possession of his shop to the complainant. A deed was also prepared to this effect, which is paper No 8/1 on record. In support of his case, Bakhshish Singh produced Balwinder Singh as an independent witness. He also corroborated the entire story as narrated by the complainant. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error in recording the conviction of the accused in respect of offence punishable in respect of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. 5) Learned counsel for the accused / revisionist submitted that he is pressing this revision only on the 4 point of sentence. The accused is an old man of 82 years and no useful purpose would be served if he is sent to jail at the fag end of his life. It is stated by learned counsel for the accused / revisionist that revisionist has already undergone about one month period in jail. 6) Having considered submission of learned counsel for the accused / revisionist, on the point of sentence, this Court does not find it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, to send the accused / revisionist again to jail at this fag end of his life. Therefore, the period of sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (about one month) by the accused / revisionist Raj Bihari Lal @ Arjun Bhatnagar. 7) Accordingly, with the above modification this revision is disposed of affirming the judgment and orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court on the point of conviction of the revisionist relating to offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. However, the sentence awarded by the courts below is reduced to the period already undergone by the accused / revisionist Raj Bihari Lal @ Arjun Bhatnagar. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. He need not to surrender. The lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 24, 2010. H. Negi