Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 659 (PNJ)

Ashwani Kumar v. State of Haryana

2003-05-07

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Ashwani Kumar the petitioner herein and his co-accused Kali Ram son of Chandan Singh and Pawan Kumar Gupta son of Hari Ram Gupta were convicted by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 6.6.1988 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine were sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and three months under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. All the three convicts thereafter preferred appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and the appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed whereas his co-accused Kali Ram and Pawan Kumar Gupta were accepted and were acquitted. However, the conviction and sentence passed under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code of the petitioner was set aside and he was acquitted of that charge. Hence, the present revision petition. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that railing was to be provided along with the Western Bank of the sacred tank of Brahm Sarovar situated in Kurukshetra during the year 1980 and the tenders were invited for the installation of GI pipes. Ashwani Kumar, the present petitioner was the contractor and the tender of the petitioner was accepted by the Executive Engineer, PWD B & R Branch being the lowest in rates. The work was to be executed under the supervision of Pawan Kumar Gupta, Sub Divisional Officer of the said department (since acquitted). According to the said agreement, the contractor was to utilise GI pipes of B grade. While executing the work, the petitioner utilised GI pipes of inferior quality. An anonymous complaint was made to the State Vigilance Bureau Department, Haryana and the present petitioner was booked. I have heard Mr. R.M. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance have also gone through the record. 3. Mr. R.M. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly conceded that he does not want to assail the impugned judgment on merits and instead prays for a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. Sanjeev Sheokand, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance have also gone through the record. 3. Mr. R.M. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly conceded that he does not want to assail the impugned judgment on merits and instead prays for a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. He further contends that the present case relates to the year 1980 whereas the FIR was lodged in 1982 after the vigilance inquiry. The co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted as benefit of doubt has been extended to them. No useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioner in jail after a lapse of 23 years. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana while refuting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was a contractor, who instead of using GI pipes as per contract, has used inferior quality of GI pipes and as such does not deserve any leniency so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. 5. I have also gone through both the judgments of the Courts below and do not find any infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the same. The petitioner was convicted on the basis of consideration of whole of the evidence led before the trial Court and the same was thereafter maintained after re-scanning of the entire evidence by the lower Appellate Court. The present revision petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed on merits. 6. Keeping in view all the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner does deserve to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. He is not a previous convict. Admittedly, the matter relates to the year 1980 and the petitioner has suffered the agony of protracted trial for 23 years by now. Keeping in view the age, character or the antecedents, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that instead of sentencing him to substantive punishment, he should be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year. So far as sentence of fine is concerned, it would remain same. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year. So far as sentence of fine is concerned, it would remain same. The petitioner would furnish the surety bond before the learned trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.