Avtar Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1059293
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-01-2013
AppellantAvtar Singh and Another
RespondentState of Haryana and Another
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. rev. not m-955 of 201.date of decision :1. t 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 respondent no.2-complainat filed pursuant to orders of the preceding dates is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. main case convicts avtar singh and his wife urvinder kaur have filed this revision petition to challenge their conviction and sentence ordered by both the courts below. petitioners stand convicted under section 406 ipc and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay fine of `1,000/- each. crl. rev. no.955 of 201.(o&m) -2- prosecution case is that the petitioners invited deposits from public. different persons deposited amounts in the company of the petitioners.however, the petitioners allegedly misappropriated the same and 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-complainant was 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/- on behalf of 23 persons including himself as per details given in the affidavit. the complainant has undertaken in the affidavit to pay the amounts of different depositors as per details given in the affidavit. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. counsel for the petitioners contended that the amount of `2,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners with the registry of this court may be released to respondent no.2-complainant for disbursement to the depositors.as mentioned in his affidavit. counsel for the petitioners also stated that the petitioners do not challenge their conviction but pray that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody. i have carefully considered the matter. the amount of `2,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners in the registry of the court is directed to be released to respondent no.2-complainant on furnishing surety undertaking to disburs.the same to various depositors as mentioned in his affidavit. crl. rev. no.955 of 201.(o&m) -3- conviction of the petitioners is well founded by both the courts below after analyzing evidence and after recording reasons for convicting the petitioners.accordingly, conviction of the petitioners.which is also not challenged by them, is upheld. as regards quantum of sentence, the fir was registered on 10.08.2000 i.e.twelve and half years ago. during this long period, the petitioners have faced agony of trial, including appeal and revision. they have also not paid principal amount of the depositors in question, although after more than fifteen years of the deposit made by them, without interest. perusal of custody certificate annexure p-1 reveals that petitioner no.1 has remained in custody for over eleven months whereas petitioner no.2, a female, has remained in custody for almost one month (after adding period upto release on bail ordered vide order dated 03.04.2012).in my considered opinion, keeping in view all the circumstances, including the payment of principal amount by the petitioners and the long period during which they have suffered the agony of trial, ends of justice would be met if sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners 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, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 1st march, 2013 (l.n.mittal) ‘raj’ judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.

REV.

not M-955 OF 201.DATE OF DECISION :

1. t 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 respondent No.2-complainat filed pursuant to orders of the preceding dates is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case Convicts Avtar Singh and his wife Urvinder Kaur have filed this revision petition to challenge their conviction and sentence ordered by both the Courts below.

Petitioners stand convicted under Section 406 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay fine of `1,000/- each.

CRL.

Rev.

No.955 OF 201.(O&M) -2- Prosecution case is that the petitioners invited deposits from public.

Different persons deposited amounts in the company of the petitioneRs.However, the petitioners allegedly misappropriated the same and 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-complainant was 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/- on behalf of 23 persons including himself as per details given in the affidavit.

The complainant has undertaken in the affidavit to pay the amounts of different depositors as per details given in the affidavit.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the amount of `2,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners with the registry of this Court may be released to respondent No.2-complainant for disbursement to the depositORS.as mentioned in his affidavit.

Counsel for the petitioners also stated that the petitioners do not challenge their conviction but pray that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody.

I have carefully considered the matter.

The amount of `2,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners in the registry of the Court is directed to be released to respondent No.2-complainant on furnishing surety undertaking to disbuRs.the same to various depositors as mentioned in his affidavit.

CRL.

Rev.

No.955 OF 201.(O&M) -3- Conviction of the petitioners is well founded by both the Courts below after analyzing evidence and after recording reasons for convicting the petitioneRs.Accordingly, conviction of the petitioneRs.which is also not challenged by them, is upheld.

As regards quantum of sentence, the FIR was registered on 10.08.2000 i.e.twelve and half years ago.

During this long period, the petitioners have faced agony of trial, including appeal and revision.

They have also not paid principal amount of the depositors in question, although after more than fifteen years of the deposit made by them, without interest.

Perusal of custody certificate Annexure P-1 reveals that petitioner No.1 has remained in custody for over eleven months whereas petitioner No.2, a female, has remained in custody for almost one month (after adding period upto release on bail ordered vide order dated 03.04.2012).In my considered opinion, keeping in view all the circumstances, including the payment of principal amount by the petitioners and the long period during which they have suffered the agony of trial, ends of justice would be met if sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners 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, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

1st March, 2013 (L.N.MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE