Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 14 (PNJ)

Kamal v. State of Haryana

2014-01-08

R.P.NAGRATH

body2014
R.P. Nagrath, J. Challenge in the instant revision is against the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below. Rohit Bakshi-complainant recorded the FIR against the petitioner and his brother, namely; Rishi who is a proclaimed offender. The complainant paid ` 49,400/- to the accused persons for getting National Permit for trucks bearing registration No. HR-38-E-1570 and HR-38-E-1750. The amount was paid on 12.2.2001 and 18.2.2001 and the appellant handed over the National Permit of both the above-stated vehicles on 16.2.2001 and 23.2.2001, respectively. Both the trucks were impounded by Regional Transport Authority (RTA) Udaipur on 17.5.2001 on the ground that the permits were fake. The complainant had to pay a fine to the tune of ` 12,700/- to the RTA, Udaipur. Charges against the petitioner were framed for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Learned trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and he was awarded following sentences:-- 1. Under Section 420 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 2000/-. 2. Under Section 467 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 4000/-. 3. Under Section 468 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 2000/-. 4. Under Section 471 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 2000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months for each of the defaults. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence also failed. 2. The bone of contention of the petitioner before the trial Court was that the vehicles were checked many times by various Transport Authorities and that it has not been proved that the permits were fake. No such record of issuance of National Permits in question was produced by the appellant in defence nor the concerned official of the Transport Authority was ever called upon to produce such registers to show the permits to be genuine. No such record of issuance of National Permits in question was produced by the appellant in defence nor the concerned official of the Transport Authority was ever called upon to produce such registers to show the permits to be genuine. It has also been found by the Courts below that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer, recovery of a register being maintained by the petitioner purported to be containing entries of issuance of National Permits was made. Those were a few entries only made in seven pages of the register. 3. Keeping in view the overwhelming evidence on record, learned Courts below held the charges against the appellant to be proved. When this petition was listed on 1.8.2013, learned petitioner's counsel did not challenge merits of conviction and made submission only qua the quantum of sentence contending that the petitioner has already undergone about 1 year and 6 months out of the maximum sentence of three years awarded under Section 467 IPC. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and given my thoughtful consideration to the above argument. The custody certificate placed on record by the learned State counsel shows that the petitioner had already undergone about 1 year and 4 months so far out of which about 6 months is the post-conviction period. 5. Learned State counsel submits that there were three more FIRs registered against the petitioner. One of the FIR is the offshoot of the present case as the petitioner was earlier declared proclaimed offender in the instant case and FIR No. 402 of 2012, was registered under Section 174A IPC at police Station Central, Faridabad. The other two FIRs are of the similar offences. One is FIR No. 46 of 2002 registered under Sections 420/468/34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Bazaar, Delhi and the other is FIR No. 108 of 2003 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Sector-31. However, it is not the contention of the State that any FIR subsequent to these FIRs were not registered against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has small children to maintain. FIR was registered in the year 2001 and the petitioner must have suffered agony of trial for quite sometime. However, it is not the contention of the State that any FIR subsequent to these FIRs were not registered against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has small children to maintain. FIR was registered in the year 2001 and the petitioner must have suffered agony of trial for quite sometime. The offences though are quite serious in nature but looking into the above facts, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of 2 years instead of three years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 467 IPC whereas the sentences imposed under other Sections are maintained. With the above reduction in the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 467 IPC and maintaining the imposition of fine for various offences, the instant revision to challenge the conviction on merits is dismissed. The instant revision is partly allowed in the terms as indicated above.