Criminal Revision No.2090 of 2004 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No.2090 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.5.2009
Amarjeet Singh @ Mikka ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.N.S.Behgal, Advocate for
Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate,
for the complainant.
****
SABINA, J.
The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) vide judgment dated
8.5.2001 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa. Vide
order dated 9.5.2001, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of
Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- to Gurmeet Singh, husband of the complainant, as
compensation within a period of six months.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal
and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 4.10.2004 by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. Hence, the present
Criminal Revision No.2090 of 2004 (O&M) 2
revision petition.
Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in
para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:-
“Brief facts of the case are that on 3.11.1996
Smt.Sukhvinder Kaur, complainant made a written
complaint Ex.PC to police for taking legal action against
Amarjeet Singh accused-appellant, upon which the
present FIR was recorded. Complainant alleged in her
complaint that accused allured and promised them to
send abroad against payment of Rs.1,08,000/- and they
would be able to earn huge money in short duration of
time there. Accused induced them dishonestly to deliver
the said sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- which they paid to him on
9.4.1994 and thereafter, he absconded to Labnon. Now
for the last one month, accused had come to India and
when they contacted him to return their money, he
threatened them with dire consequences, if they tried to
convene any panchayat or raised demand for return of
their money. Police after registration of the case,
arrested the accused and undertook investigation.
Statements of witnesses were recorded. Certain
documents were taken into possession and after
completion of investigation, submitted the final report to
the Court for trial of accused under Section 420 IPC.”
Criminal Revision No.2090 of 2004 (O&M) 3
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under
Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner
has already deposited Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. the amount of
compensation, with the trial Court in terms of the order of this Court
dated 10.1.2005 and the petitioner has no objection if the same is
released to the complainant. Learned counsel has further submitted
that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to
as already undergone by him as the petitioner has undergone actual
sentence of about six months and he is not a previous convict.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case,
it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment of the
petitioner is liable to be reduced to as already undergone by him.
Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section
420 IPC is maintained. However, his sentence qua imprisonment is
reduced to as already undergone by him. The amount of
compensation deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court in terms
of the order of this Court dated 10.1.2005 is ordered to be released
to the complainant forthwith.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
May 28, 2009
anita