Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2008.
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2008.
Date of decision:25.9.2008.
Mamlook Ali.
...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana.
...Respondent.
...
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.
...
Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG Haryana.
...
K. C. Puri, J.
Judgment
This Criminal Revision petition has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 5.12.2006 passed by Shri C.L.Mohal,
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,Jagadhri whereby the
petitioner was held guilty for offences punishable under Sections
170, 465, 468,471,convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of
Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2008.
-2-
Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 170 IPC; to
undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 465 IPC; to
undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 468 IPC
and to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 471 IPC.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The petitioner has also impugned the judgment dated
16.7.2008 delivered by Shri Darshan Singh, Additional Sessions
Judge, Yamuna Nagar whereby his appeal was dismissed.
As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was booked
in the present case, at the instance of PW-2 Complainant Parveen
Kumar Garg, who in his statement Exhibit PB, on the basis of
which the present case was registered, has stated that on 19.4.1999,
his daughter Shaveta went to school but did not return and in that
regard, he got lodged one F.I.R in the police station and even an
advertisement was published in the newspaper “Punjab Kesri”
Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2008.
-3-
about her missing.
The complainant further stated that on 22.5.1999, at
about 5-00 P.M, he along with his brother-in-law Naresh Kumar
Mittal was present at his house. In the meantime, a boy came there
and told his name as Mamlook Ali. The accused apprised the
complainant that he had come from C.B.I and also showed his
identity card. Thereafter, he told that the Head Office of C.B.I had
sent him for investigation of his missing girl. He asked for a room
for his residence and for arrangement of a two wheeler. He
(complainant) got suspicious and when he asked that boy about his
authenticity, earlier he refused, but , later on, admitted that he was
not a C.B.I official. He then informed the police.
During the investigation of the case, the
accused/petitioner was arrested. He was interrogated and fake
identity card, news-paper cutting about advertisement/notice
regarding missing of Shaveta and a rubber stamp were recovered
from his possession.
Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C
were recorded and after completion of investigation, final report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented before the Court of law.
The accused/petitioner was charge-sheeted accordingly
to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2008.
-4-
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW-1
Naresh Kumar Mittal, PW-2 complainant Parveen Kumar, PW-3 SI
Narinder Kumar and PW-4 SI Ajit Kumar, Investigating Officer of
the case.
After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the
statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
He pleaded himself to be innocent.
However, the accused did not produce any evidence in
his defence.
On an appreciation of the entire evidence on the record,
the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as
detailed above and his appeal was also dismissed, as noticed
earlier.
At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
taken up a stand that having regard to the concurrent findings
returned by the Courts below in relation to the conviction of the
petitioner for the offences in question, he may not be able to
persuade this Court to take a contrary view and that, too, on re-
appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence on record.
Consequently, instead of pressing this Criminal Revision Petition,
on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 1999
Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2008.
-5-
and the petitioner faced a protracted trial for about nine years; the
petitioner had already undergone more three months of actual
imprisonment out of total sentence of two years and that it will be
inequitable to send him to jail again at this stage.
The learned State counsel,though, does not dispute the
afore-mentioned mitigating circumstances, yet he contends that in
view of nature of the offence proved against the petitioner, it might
not be a fit case for reducing the sentence already awarded to the
petitioner.
Apart from considering the fact that the impugned
judgments are based on cogent and reliable evidence, it is to be
seen that this Criminal Revision was admitted on the quantum of
sentence only. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner is
confirmed.
Keeping in view the cardinal principle of law that right
of speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and
cherished right of an accused; the purpose of punishment in
criminal cases is that the person found guilty of committing the
offence is made to realize his fault and is deterred from repeating
such acts in future; that the reformative aspect is meant to enable
the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make
himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being and the
Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2008.
-6-
fact that within the parameters of the law, an attempt should be
made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself
and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make
his contribution in that regard. The accused, by his act, has not
harmed anyone. So, keeping in view the totality of circumstances,
the ends of justice would be fully met if the sentence of the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him but
the amount of fine is enhanced suitably.
Therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to
the period already undergone by him but the amount of fine is
enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.
However, in default of payment of fine, the
accused/petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three months.
This Criminal Revision is disposed of in the manner
indicated above.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial
Court for strict compliance.
September 25,2008. ( K. C. Puri )
Jaggi Judge
Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2008.
-7-