Present: Mr. Raman Chawla Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1139111
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-29-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr. Raman Chawla Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. revision no.17 of 2014(o&m) date of decision: april 29, 2014 rajesh and another ---petitioners versus state of haryana ---respondent coram: hon'ble mrs.justice rekha mittal present: mr.raman chawla, advocate for petitioner no.1 mr.kartar singh malik-i, advocate for respondent no.2 ms.loveleen dhaliwal singla, sr.dag, haryana for respondent-state. *** 1. whether reporters of local papers 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?. *** rekha mittal, j. the present petition has been directed against the judgment passed by the courts below whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced for committing offence punishable under section 419 read with section 120-b of the indian penal code (for short “ipc”.).the petitioners had given up their challenge to the findings recorded by the courts below in regard to their conviction for the said offence. as a result, notice of motion was issued limited to hear the parties on quantum of sentence. counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have suffered custody for a period of about 05 months out of substantive saini paramjit kaur 2014.05.05 15:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl. revision n. 17 of 2014 -2- sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. due to lodging of criminal proceedings against them, their entire future to secure some government job has been finished. no other criminal case was registered against them nor pending in the court. he has prayed that substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone. counsel for the state has not disputed factual assertions but opposed the prayer for reduction in sentence. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners with the lodging of fir no.158 dated 25.4.2008. they have suffered torment of criminal proceedings for the last about 06 years.perusal of the custody certificate reveals that no other criminal case stands registered much less pending against them. the conviction of the petitioners for impersonating during recruitment process may render them ineligible to get any government job. in view of totality of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 08 months. petition stands disposed of with modification in the aforesaid terms.(rekha mittal) judge april 29, 2014 paramjit saini paramjit kaur 2014.05.05 15:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.

Revision No.17 of 2014(O&M) Date of Decision: April 29, 2014 Rajesh and another ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal Present: Mr.Raman Chawla, Advocate for petitioner No.1 Mr.Kartar Singh Malik-I, Advocate for respondent No.2 Ms.Loveleen Dhaliwal Singla, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondent-State.

*** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers 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?.

*** REKHA MITTAL, J.

The present petition has been directed against the judgment passed by the courts below whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced for committing offence punishable under Section 419 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”.).The petitioners had given up their challenge to the findings recorded by the courts below in regard to their conviction for the said offence.

As a result, notice of motion was issued limited to hear the parties on quantum of sentence.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have suffered custody for a period of about 05 months out of substantive Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.05.05 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Revision N.

17 of 2014 -2- sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

Due to lodging of criminal proceedings against them, their entire future to secure some government job has been finished.

No other criminal case was registered against them nor pending in the Court.

He has prayed that substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone.

Counsel for the State has not disputed factual assertions but opposed the prayer for reduction in sentence.

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

Criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners with the lodging of FIR No.158 dated 25.4.2008.

They have suffered torment of criminal proceedings for the last about 06 yeaRs.Perusal of the custody certificate reveals that no other criminal case stands registered much less pending against them.

The conviction of the petitioners for impersonating during recruitment process may render them ineligible to get any government job.

In view of totality of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 08 months.

Petition stands disposed of with modification in the aforesaid terMs.(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE April 29, 2014 PARAMJIT Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.05.05 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh