Amar Singh vs State of Haryana

R.P. Nagrath, J.—The instant revision has been filed against the concurrent findings of conviction u/s 420 IPC recorded by the Courts below. The petitioner was awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. The revision-petitioner executed an agreement to sell dated 19.06.2004 in respect of sale of 8 kanals of land for a consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- and received Rs. 73,200/- towards earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by 18.06.2005. The petitioner did not execute the sale deed but it was found that he had already executed a release deed in respect of the his land in favour of his wife on 25.05.2004. By the time the agreement to sell was executed there was no entry of mutation in favour of his wife in the revenue record. Complainant Kulwant Singh made a complaint to the Magistrate who sent it to the Police Station u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 26 dated 05.03.2005 was registered by the Police.

Evidence in abundance was led before the trial Court for proving agreement to sell and the release deed. But the factum of execution of these documents is not disputed in the instant revision. The argument raised before the Courts below is that in fact the complainant was not able to pay the balance amount of sale consideration although wife of petitioner had always been ready and willing to execute the sale deed. This FIR was registered on 05.03.2005 but till today the sale deed has been executed in favour of the complainant. The above contention, therefore, is not available to the petitioner. In fact the existence of a release deed in favour of wife of the petitioner should have been disclosed in the agreement to sell itself unless the intention of petitioner was to commit cheating and inducing the complainant to part with huge amount of money.

In the grounds of revision it was suggested that wife of the petitioner did not have any pre-existing right in the property in question, so she should not become owner of the property whereas such was not a contention raised before the Courts below. It was also pleaded in the grounds of revision that the petitioner was under misconception that the sale deed would be executed by his wife but in rural India it is not the female members of the family who come forward in such matters.

Faced with the above facts, learned counsel for petitioner did not challenge the conviction recorded by the Courts below. Therefore, notice of motion was issued only qua the quantum of sentence or to consider prayer for releasing petitioner on probation.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel on this limited question.

The amount for which the complainant was cheated is not on the higher side. As per custody certificate placed on record by the State counsel, the petitioner has already undergone more than 11 months of imprisonment including 8 months of post conviction period. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to one year instead of 2 years of imprisonment. The revision, therefore, which challenges the conviction is dismissed and the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of one year maintaining the imposition of fine and the default clause.

The revision is, therefore, partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment as aforesaid and challenge to the conviction on merits is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court and all the concerned, for compliance.