Dalvinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009

      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

                                Crl. Revision No. 1314 of 2007(O&M)
                                Date of Decision:May 20, 2009


Dalvinder Singh


                                            ---Petitioner


                   versus


State of Haryana

                                            ---Respondent

Coram:       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

                 ***

Present:     Mr. G.S.Gandhi and Mr. R.P.Daaria, Advocates,
             for the petitioner

             Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana

                   ***


SABINA, J.

Dalvinder Singh-petitioner was convicted for an offence under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) vide

judgment dated 8.10.2004 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari. Vide

order of even date passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Jagadhari, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner

preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgment dated 14.7.2007

Hence, the present revision petition.

Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate
Crl. Revision No. 1314 of 2007(O&M) -2

Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:-

“The case of the prosecution,m put briefly, is that an

application was received in the office of Superintendent of

Police,Yamun Nagar on 22.7.1998 regarding illegal

gratification having been taken by Dalvinder Singh from

various people on the pretext that he would get loan from the

Central Government for them. The accused was a resident of

village Kot Basawa Singh and received a sum of Rs. 700/-

each from 50 persons on the pretext that he would get loan

sanctioned from D.R.D.A. and Haryana Harijan Kalyan Nigam.

A couple of loans were sanctioned. In enquiry, however, it

was revealed that the government was not charging any fee

for the loan application nor incurred any expenses. The money

collected by the accused was entirely for his own use. The

police filed charge sheet against him for the offence under

Section 420 IPC.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of

arguments has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section

420 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not a previous

convict and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1998. Petitioner

has already undergone about 3½ months of actual sentence awarded by the

courts below. Most of the witnesses had turned hostile during trial.

Learned counsel has requested that the sentence of imprisonment of the

petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for
Crl. Revision No. 1314 of 2007(O&M) -3-

the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment is liable to

be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, conviction

of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC is maintained. However, sentence

of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(SABINA)
JUDGE

May 20, 2009
PARAMJIT