CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS 13154 of 2013 on 10 August 2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

CRL. REV. No.M-955 OF 2012DATE OF DECISION : 1st March, 2013

Avtar Singh & another

…. Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana & another

…. Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * * *

Present :Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sidharth Sarup, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. R. K. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

* * * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

Crl. Misc. No.13154 of 2013

The application is allowed and annexed affidavit of respondentNo.2-complainat filed pursuant to orders of the preceding dates is taken onrecord, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case

Convicts Avtar Singh and his wife Urvinder Kaur have filedthis revision petition to challenge their conviction and sentence ordered byboth the Courts below. Petitioners stand convicted under Section 406 IPCand have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two yearseach and to pay fine of `1,000/- each.

Prosecution case is that the petitioners invited deposits frompublic. Different persons deposited amounts in the company of thepetitioners. However, the petitioners allegedly misappropriated the sameand failed to pay the maturity amount to the depositors.

Pursuant to order of this Court, the petitioners have deposited`2,00,000/- with the registry of this Court. Respondent No.2-complainantwas acting as agent of the petitioners for securing deposit in their company.Affidavit of respondent No.2 reveals that he had deposited `2,08,603/- onbehalf of 23 persons including himself as per details given in the affidavit.The complainant has undertaken in the affidavit to pay the amounts ofdifferent depositors as per details given in the affidavit.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thecase file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the amount of`2,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners with the registry of this Court maybe released to respondent No.2-complainant for disbursement to thedepositors, as mentioned in his affidavit. Counsel for the petitioners alsostated that the petitioners do not challenge their conviction but pray that thesentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone bythem in custody.

I have carefully considered the matter. The amount of`2,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners in the registry of the Court isdirected to be released to respondent No.2-complainant on furnishing suretyundertaking to disburse the same to various depositors as mentioned in hisaffidavit.

Conviction of the petitioners is well founded by both theCourts below after analyzing evidence and after recording reasons forconvicting the petitioners. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners, whichis also not challenged by them, is upheld.

As regards quantum of sentence, the FIR was registered on10.08.2000 i.e. twelve and half years ago. During this long period, thepetitioners have faced agony of trial, including appeal and revision. Theyhave also now paid principal amount of the depositors in question, althoughafter more than fifteen years of the deposit made by them, without interest.Perusal of custody certificate Annexure P-1 reveals that petitioner No.1 hasremained in custody for over eleven months whereas petitioner No.2, afemale, has remained in custody for almost one month (after adding periodupto release on bail ordered vide order dated 03.04.2012).

In my considered opinion, keeping in view all thecircumstances, including the payment of principal amount by the petitionersand the long period during which they have suffered the agony of trial, endsof justice would be met if sentence of imprisonment awarded to thepetitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody,while maintaining the sentence of fine. It is ordered accordingly.

With reduction in quantum of sentence as aforesaid, therevision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(L. N. MITTAL)JUDGE

1[st] March, 2013 ‘raj’