207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 1344 of 2017 (O/M)
Date of decision : 20.9.2017
Rajinder Singh ………. Revisionist
Versus
State of Punjab ……. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate, for revisionist.
Mr. C.L. Pawar, Senior DAG Punjab.
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)
Heard.
The learned counsel for revisionist restricts his prayer on the
quantum of sentence only.
In this case, revisionist has been convicted by the learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, for offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420 IPC, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 5.4.2016 and was sentenced as under :-
“Name of accused Offence Sentence
Rajinder Singh Under Sec. 420 To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
IPC for a period of one year and also to
pay fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of
payment of fine to further undergo
SI for seven days.
Under Sec. 406 To undergo simple imprisonment for a
IPC period of three months.”
The fine was paid. The appeal against the said judgment was
1 of 2
24-09-2017 01:25:29 :::
CRR No. 1344 of 2017 (O/M) -2-
dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide judgment
dated 22.11.2016.
It comes out that the allegations against revisionist are that he
cheated the complainant and obtained Rs. 1,30,000/- from him for sending
his son to Malaysia and arrange a work permit and instead, he arranged a
tourist visa for the son of complainant. It comes out that both the Courts
below have committed grave error while convicting revisionist for offences
punishable under Sections 406 as well as 420 IPC. The allegations are of
cheating and not of criminal breach of trust. Therefore, conviction awarded
to revisionist under Section 406 IPC is hereby set aside. As per the custody
certificate, revisionist has already undergone the actual sentence of about 8
months and 27 days (as on 4.7.2017), which now comes to about 11 months
and 13 days.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
sentence of revisionist awarded under Section 420 IPC is reduced to the
period already undergone by him. He be released forthwith, if not required
in any other case. Hence, revision is partly allowed.
(KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE
20.9.2017
sjks
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
2 of 2
24-09-2017 01:25:31 :::
