JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - The present revision petition has been preferred by Manjot Singh, who was nominated as an accused in case FIR No.96 dated 22.9.2007, registered at Police Station Maur, under Sections 384/506/120-B IPC. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 6.8.2010 found the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 384/120-B/506 IPC and vide the order of even date, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the commission of offence under Section 384 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the commission of offence under Section 120-B IPC. Petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the commission of offence under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court was partly accepted by learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.1.2012 and the sentence awarded by learned trial Court was reduced and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the commission of offence under Section 384 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the commission of offence under Section 120-B IPC. However, sentence of six months RI under Section 506 IPC was upheld. 3. In the present revision, challenge is to conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the learned Courts below upon the petitioner – Manjot Singh. 4. However, sentence of six months RI under Section 506 IPC was upheld. 3. In the present revision, challenge is to conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the learned Courts below upon the petitioner – Manjot Singh. 4. Brief facts as culled out from the record of the case are, that SI Jaspal Singh along with other police officials was present at Ram Nagar Kainchia, Maur Mandi in connection with patrolling where Surinder Pal Bansal got his statement recorded to the effect that he was running a New Golden Bus Service. His sister-in-law Pinki wd/o Satnam Singh was having dispute of house with his brother Subhash Kumar qua which stay had been granted by Court. He had received several calls on his telephone No.94173-00061 by caller who revealed his named as Avinash Maur Press reporter and the other as Sushil Kumar. They told him that they have received an inquiry with regard to their case with his sister in law. In case they paid them one lac rupees, they shall conduct inquiry in their favour failing which they shall get news items published against them which shall tarnish their image and would effect their case. He had requested them to consider their demand and to agree for a less amount. Then Avinash Maur told him to come the next day in the Govt. quarter at Civil Hospital, Maur Mandi by 1.00 p.m. along with Rupees fifty five thousand failing which matter would be published against them. He was though unable to pay the same but fearing threat, he made a false promise. He had discussed about the same with his friend Sham Lal son of Roshan Lal who told that they should report the matter qua said blackmailers to the police and he produced 55 currency notes of the denomination Rs.1000 each and prayed for action against Avinash Maur and Sushil Kumar. Statement of complainant was recorded. By sending ruqa through HC Krishan Singh, case was got registered. Request was made to the SDM, Talwandi Sabo for sending civil officer as the matter concerned the Press reporters. Naib Tehsildar Sh. Kuldeep Singh was accordingly sent. In his presence, 55 notes of the denomination of Rs. Rs.1000/- were handed over to Surinder pal Bansal and Sham Lal was appointed as shadow witness who accordingly reached the spot as per the plan and the shadow witness gave signal to the police party. Naib Tehsildar Sh. Kuldeep Singh was accordingly sent. In his presence, 55 notes of the denomination of Rs. Rs.1000/- were handed over to Surinder pal Bansal and Sham Lal was appointed as shadow witness who accordingly reached the spot as per the plan and the shadow witness gave signal to the police party. Thereafter, SI Jaspal Singh along with Naib Tehsildar who were standing for the signal nabbed four persons who were present in the room. Then complainant revealed name of one of the persons as Avinash Maur who on questioning also told his name as Avinash Maur. 30 currency notes of the denomination Rs.1000/- each were recovered from him and 25 currency notes of the denomination Rs.1000/- were recovered from Jaspal alias Sushil Kumar which were taken into possession. Hands of witnesses were got washed in a glass of water containing sodium carbonate but the colour of the water did not change but when the hands of Avinash Maur and Sushil Kumar were got washed the colour of the water changed to pink. Liquid was then taken into police possession, in bottles sealed with seal impression JS. Sample of seal was separately prepared. The other two persons when questioned told their names as Jiwan Kumar and Manjot Singh. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. 5. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under Sections 120-B/384/506 IPC was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Surinder Pal Bansal as PW1, ASI Darshan Singh witness to the recovery as PW2, shadow witness Sham Lal as PW3, R.D. Singla Manager as PW4, IO SI Jaspal Singh as PW5, witness Pinki as PW6, Dr. Madan Lal as PW7 and Gurtej Singh Record Keeper, Judical Record Room as PW8. Thereafter, learned APP closed the evidence on behalf of the prosecution. 7. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which all the incriminating evidence appearing against them was put to them but they denied the same. Accused had though opted to lead evidence in defence but they closed the same without leading any evidence. However, they tendered in evidence one copy of information received under RTI Act qua presence of Naib Tehsildar at Talwandi Sabo and Maur. 8. Accused had though opted to lead evidence in defence but they closed the same without leading any evidence. However, they tendered in evidence one copy of information received under RTI Act qua presence of Naib Tehsildar at Talwandi Sabo and Maur. 8. The learned Trial Court, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused. The order and judgment passed by learned trial Court has been modified by learned appellate Court as above. Hence, this petition. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, the learned State counsel. 10. Having been confronted with the quality of evidence available on the record, which is cogent and convincing and leads to no other conclusion but the conviction of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not be able to successfully challenge the conviction of the petitioner. However, he prays that the petitioner has already undergone sentence for about six months out of two years and the sentence of the petitioner be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like Damocles’ sword for the last more than four years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the occurrence pertains to the year 2007 and since then a period of more than 4 ½ years has elapsed. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal for a long period. 11. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, which have been noticed above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars further. Ordered accordingly. It is a fit case wherein the sentence awarded to the petitioner can be reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. However, petitioner is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month. In default, the amount will be recoverable as land revenue. 12. With the aforesaid modification, the impugned order of the learned lower appellate Court is upheld. 13. The present revision petition stands disposed of with a direction that the petitioner be released immediately, if not required in any other case. ---------0.B.S.0------------