Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Rekha Mittal, J.

CRM No. 34488 of 2013

Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P2 to P5 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

C.R.R. No. 4052 of 2012

Through the present petition, the petitioner assails his conviction and sentence by the courts below, whereby he has been convicted for offence u/s 420 IPC.

On July 17, 2013, counsel for the petitioner made a submission that he does not press his challenge to conviction of the petitioner but he may be heard on the question of sentence.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegations levelled against him, he received Rs. 1.5 lacs each from 5 persons on an assurance to send them abroad, but failed to honour his commitment. The plea with regard to payment to the petitioner is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. It is also alleged that the petitioner returned passports and 33% of the amount but failed to return the remaining amount but it has not been made clear as to how much amount was returned constituting 33% of the alleged total payment made to him.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone more than 10 months of actual custody since the judgment of trial Court has been affirmed in appeal in December, 2012 plus his custody during investigation and trial of the case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not a previous convict nor any other criminal case was ever registered or pending against him. It is argued that the petitioner''s family suffered two deaths during his custody after his conviction by the appellate Court and he has placed on record death certificates of those family members. The last submission made by counsel is that keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Counsel for the State, however, opposes this request.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The criminal case was registered against the petitioner in July, 2004. He has suffered pangs of investigation, trial and proceedings before the appellate Court for the last more than 9 years. He has suffered actual imprisonment for a period of more than 10 months as depicted in the custody certificate available on record. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner ever stood in the way of administration of criminal justice or in any way attributed in delay of decision of the case by the courts below.

In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The petition stands disposed of with modification in the aforesaid terms.