High CourtsSingle Bench

Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 May 2014 · Citation: (2014) 05 P&H CK 0575

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surinder Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 420
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Crl. Revision No. 3561 of 2013 (O&M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 366 words

Surinder Gupta, J.—Heard.

2.

The petitioner faced trial in case bearing FIR No. 63 dated 19.03.2005 registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur for the offence punishable u/s 420 Indian Penal Code.

3.

The allegations against the petitioner, in brief, are that he cheated the complainant of Rs. 70,000 on the pretext of providing employment to his son in Railway Department. Neither he could arrange any job for the son of complainant nor returned the amount. After trial, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur vide judgment dated 10.09.2012 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. The appeal against the judgment of the trial Court was also dismissed vide judgment dated 30.10.2013 and the conviction and sentence of petitioner was maintained.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought leniency in the quantum of sentence on the ground that petitioner has a minor son aged two and half years. His wife is illiterate. There is no other earning member in the family and he has faced the agony of trial and then conviction for the last more than nine years.

5.

Learned State counsel has argued that the sentence awarded to the petitioner commensurate with the nature of offence committed by him, petitioner has cheated the complainant on the pretext of arranging job for his son.

6.

Perusal of custody certificate shows that petitioner has already undergone about seven months of actual sentence and also earned remissions of eight days.

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner is not a previous convict, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner merit consideration. The revision petition is partly accepted. While maintaining the judgment of conviction as passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified and is reduced from two years to one year on depositing Rs. 25,000 as compensation payable to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of compensation will be deposited within ten days before the trial Court. On being deposit, the trial Court shall disburse the same to the complainant.