Krishan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2017

222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No.2640 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : September 12, 2017

Krishan Kumar ……. Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ……. Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH

Present:- Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Garg, AAG, Haryana.

1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to
see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?

KULDIP SINGH J. (ORAL)

This is revision against the judgment dated 26.07.2017 passed

by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal, affirming the judgment of

conviction dated 05.02.2014 and order of sentence dated 07.02.2014 passed

by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, whereby the present

petitioner was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under

Section 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one

year and to pay a fine of `2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to furhter

undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed in the Court

today and the same is taken on record.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he being a

registered agent of Reliance General Insurance Company, issued a cover

note to the complainant for the insurance of his vehicle from 22.11.2007 to

21.11.2008 and received `6,902/-. However, he did not pay the said money

to the Insurance Company with the result that cover note was cancelled.

1 of 2
17-09-2017 23:20:52 :::
CRR No.2640 of 2017 (OM) -2-

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

had issued a cheque to the Insurance Company, which was dishonoured.

The fact remains that the money was not paid to the Insurance

Company either by cheque or cash.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that later on, the

petitioner had paid the money to the Insurance Company, for which valid

cover note was issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner presses the present revision

petition only on the point of quantum of sentence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact

that the petitioner is neither the previous convict nor any trial is pending

against him, the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year awarded to

him is reduced to simple imprisonment for nine months. However, the

remaining part of the sentence shall remain intact.

With the abovenoted modification in the sentence of

imprisonment, the present revision petition is disposed of.

(KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE
September 12, 2017
sarita
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable: No

2 of 2
17-09-2017 23:20:54 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *