IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Revision Petition No.909 of 1997
Date of Decision: 17.8.2009
Harpal Singh.
....... Petitioner through Shri
M.S.Sidhu, Advocate.
Versus
State of U.T., Chandigarh.
....... Respondent through Shri.
Hemant Bassi, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
....
Mahesh Grover,J.
This revision petition is directed against judgment dated
19.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (hereinafter
described as `the appellate Court’) vide which the appeal of the petitioner
preferred against judgment and order dated 30.5.1994 of the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court’)
was disposed of with some modification in the sentence awarded to him
and his conviction under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. was
maintained.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, while
employed as peon on daily wages in the Punjab & Sind Bank, Sector 17,
Crl.Revision Petition No.909 of 1997
-2-
….
Chandigarh Branch, had attempted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1500/-
from the account of Ms. Indra Chaudhary, who was working as an officer
in the said branch, by forging the signatures. On presentation of the
withdrawal slip, he was apprehended on the spot as the signatures did not
tally with the signatures of the account holder.
After completion of necessary investigation, the petitioner was
challaned for having committed offences punishable under Sections 467,
The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence brought before it,
convicted the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. He was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 467 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment
of fine, he was directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of two
months. He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 468 of the I.P.C. and in default
of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Still
further, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years
under Section 471 of the I.P.C. However, all the sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
On appeal, the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the
trial Court was maintained. Even the sentence awarded under Sections 467
and 468 of the I.P.C. was upheld, but the sentence under Section 471 of the
I.P.C. was modified to the extent that the petitioner was directed to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous
Crl.Revision Petition No.909 of 1997
-3-
….
imprisonment for one month, besides the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment of two years. All the substantive sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
This has resulted in filing of the instant petition by the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the
impugned judgment, has contended that a lenient view may be taken of the
situation as the petitioner has already faced the agony of the criminal
proceedings for the last twenty years and that only an attempt was made to
withdraw the money which did not cause any pecuniary loss to PW12-Indra
Chaudhary. He further contended that the sentence of three years awarded
to the petitioner under Section 467 of the I.P.C. is also on higher side. In
any eventuality, he submitted that since the proceedings are going on for
more than two decades, no useful purpose would be served by sending the
petitioner to jail at this point of time, especially when by now,he would be
fairly advanced in age. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a
judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Radhey Shyam Versus State of
U.P., 2009(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 216.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union Territory,
Chandigarh contended that there is over-whelming evidence on record by
which the guilt of the petitioner has been established as he was caught red
handed and there is no mitigating circumstance in his favour.
I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions.
A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the petitioner
Crl.Revision Petition No.909 of 1997
-4-
….
was apprehended at the spot with the forged signatures on the withdrawal
slip. The opinion of the handwriting expert clearly established that the
signatures of PW12-Indra Chaudhary were forged. PW12 has also
deposed that she had never signed the withdrawal slip. In view of this un-
impeached evidence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment
of conviction.
The only question that is to be determined is as to whether the
maintaining of sentence as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the
appellate Court at this stage is just and proper, especially keeping in view
the fact that the petitioner has faced the agony of criminal proceedings for
the last more than twenty three years and by now, he has fairly advanced in
age. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be squarely met if the
sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone and in the
alternative, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as fine in addition to
the fine already imposed upon him. For this view, I find support from the
judgment of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam’s case (supra).
Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of in the
following terms:-
1. The conviction of the petitioner shall remain intact.
2. The sentence awarded to him is reduced to that of already
undergone and he shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/- within a
period of three months from today, which shall be in
addition to the amount of fine already imposed and paid by
him.
Crl.Revision Petition No.909 of 1997
-5-
….
3. In default of payment of the aforesaid amount, the sentence
of imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed
by the appellate Court shall stand revived and he shall be
required to undergo the remaining portion thereof.
August 17,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge