Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1091324
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-19-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr.R.S.Mamli Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crl. revision no.1981 of 2004 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. revision no.1981 of 2004 date of decision: september 19, 2013 virender singh panwar ---petitioner versus state of haryana ---respondent coram: hon'ble mrs.justice rekha mittal present: mr.r.s.mamli, advocate for the petitioner mr.anupam sharma, asstt. a.g.haryana for respondent-state. *** rekha mittal, j. through the present petition, the petitioner assails the judgments of the courts below whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for offence under sections 406 and 420 ipc. the petition was admitted on 15.12.2004 and has come up for hearing after about nine years.counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to concede that he does not assail the conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, however, he may be heard and extended leniency qua quantum of sentence. counsel for the petitioner submits that criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 1996 and the dispute as per the allegations of the complainant is that the accused refused to refund security saini paramjit kaur 2013.09.23 16:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl. revision no.1981 of 2004 -2- amount of rs.26,000/- deposited by the complainant and his co-employee and they were not paid salary for a period of three months at the rate of rs.2000/- per month. counsel has further submitted that the allegations, at the most, give rise to civil liability but the petitioner was booked in criminal proceedings and he faced rigmarole of trial and other proceedings for the last 17 years.it is further submitted that sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone and he is ready to compensate the complainant by depositing an amount in the trial court as ascertained by this court. counsel for the respondent has not disputed the factual assertions and stated that the petitioner has suffered actual sentence of 03 months and 11 days out of sentence of one year for offence under section 406 ipc and three years for offence under section 420 ipc. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. a perusal of averments contained in the fir would make it manifest that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had opened an office named “tiger security service”. in shahbad (markanda) and opened a branch there and had many other branches. the complainant and one balwinder singh were employed by the petitioner and they deposited security of rs.13,000/- each and were not paid salary at the rate of rs.2000/- per month for a period of three months, during which they worked as manager in different branches. the petitioner has already undergone pangs, agony and trauma of criminal proceedings for the last about 17 years.he has remained behind bars for a period of 03 months and 11 days. there is nothing on record to suggest that he was ever convicted in any other case. saini paramjit kaur 2013.09.23 16:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl. revision no.1981 of 2004 -3- the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant and his co-employee balwinder singh. it would be too hars.to send the petitioner in jail after a period of about 10 years since his conviction and sentence were affirmed in appeal. keeping in mind the gamut of entire facts and circumstances, as has been discussed hereinabove, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. however, he shall deposit rs.40,000/- in the trial court which shall be payable to the complainant and balwinder singh in equal share. the petition stands disposed of with modification in the aforesaid terms.(rekha mittal) judge september 19, 2013 paramjit saini paramjit kaur 2013.09.23 16:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

Crl.

Revision No.1981 of 2004 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.

Revision No.1981 of 2004 Date of Decision: September 19, 2013 Virender Singh Panwar ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Anupam Sharma, Asstt.

A.G.Haryana for respondent-State.

*** REKHA MITTAL, J.

Through the present petition, the petitioner assails the judgments of the Courts below whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

The petition was admitted on 15.12.2004 and has come up for hearing after about nine yeaRs.Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to concede that he does not assail the conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, however, he may be heard and extended leniency qua quantum of sentence.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 1996 and the dispute as per the allegations of the complainant is that the accused refused to refund security Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.09.23 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Revision No.1981 of 2004 -2- amount of Rs.26,000/- deposited by the complainant and his co-employee and they were not paid salary for a period of three months at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month.

Counsel has further submitted that the allegations, at the most, give rise to civil liability but the petitioner was booked in criminal proceedings and he faced rigmarole of trial and other proceedings for the last 17 yeaRs.It is further submitted that sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone and he is ready to compensate the complainant by depositing an amount in the trial Court as ascertained by this Court.

Counsel for the respondent has not disputed the factual assertions and stated that the petitioner has suffered actual sentence of 03 months and 11 days out of sentence of one year for offence under Section 406 IPC and three years for offence under Section 420 IPC.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

A perusal of averments contained in the FIR would make it manifest that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had opened an office named “Tiger Security Service”.

in Shahbad (Markanda) and opened a branch there and had many other branches.

The complainant and one Balwinder Singh were employed by the petitioner and they deposited security of Rs.13,000/- each and were not paid salary at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month for a period of three months, during which they worked as manager in different branches.

The petitioner has already undergone pangs, agony and trauma of criminal proceedings for the last about 17 yeaRs.He has remained behind bars for a period of 03 months and 11 days.

There is nothing on record to suggest that he was ever convicted in any other case.

Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.09.23 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Revision No.1981 of 2004 -3- The petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant and his co-employee Balwinder Singh.

It would be too haRs.to send the petitioner in jail after a period of about 10 years since his conviction and sentence were affirmed in appeal.

Keeping in mind the gamut of entire facts and circumstances, as has been discussed hereinabove, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

However, he shall deposit Rs.40,000/- in the trial Court which shall be payable to the complainant and Balwinder Singh in equal share.

The petition stands disposed of with modification in the aforesaid terMs.(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE September 19, 2013 PARAMJIT Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.09.23 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh