Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1476 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: July 28, 2014 Surinder ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.R.S.Budhwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Criminal Misc.No.15123 of 2014 This application is for condonation of delay of 479 days in filing the revision petition.
Heard.
No ground is made out to condone the aforesaid delay.
Dismissed.
Criminal Revision No.1476 of 2014 Petitioner Surinder has preferred this petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C.against the judgment of conviction dated 11.10.2012 and order of sentence dated 15.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.
FIR No.13 dated 25.07.2011 was registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Malhotra Mamta 2014.08.04 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1476 of 2014 (O&M) [2].respondent No.2-Bal Kishan Verma.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment of conviction dated 11.10.2012 and order of sentence dated 15.10.2012, held him guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (i)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not argued on any point on which the sentence is to be increased.
Nothing has been argued regarding enhancement of sentence except that the sentence is inadequate.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
As per the allegation, the accused-respondent No.2 (hereinreferred as 'the accused') was raising demand of Rs.5,000/- from petitioner-complainant in lieu of doing his work.
The accused had agreed to do the work on receipt of bribe of Rs.3,000/-.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the Malhotra Mamta 2014.08.04 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1476 of 2014 (O&M) [3].present case, I do not find any ground to enhance the sentence.
The accused-respondent No.2 has been adequately sentenced by the trial Court for the charges for which he has been convicted.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
July 28, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) mamta JUDGE Malhotra Mamta 2014.08.04 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh