Rajnish Kumar vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The petitioner alongwith his father Mohinder Kumar and wife Manju was tried for the offences under Sections 420/34

IPC on the allegations that they had collected an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- from complainant Ranjana Singla with a false promise of sending her

son Amit to a foreign country for studying there. Vide judgment and order dated 15.6.2002, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul

convicted the petitioner u/s 420 IPC and his co-accused Mohinder Kumar and Manju under Sections 420/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous

imprisonment for two months.

Aggrieved of their conviction and sentence, the petitioner and his co-accused filed an appeal. Vide judgment dated 16.4.2003, learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda acquitted Mohinder Kumar and Manju accused of the charges against them. However, the conviction and

sentence of the petitioner, as ordered by the trial Court was maintained.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has expressed his helplessness in laying serious challenge to the conviction of his client u/s 420 IPC in view of

the overwhelming evidence brought on record by the prosecution. However, he has submitted that out of the sentence of two years imposed upon

the petitioner by the Courts below, the petitioner has already undergone a period of about one year and four months in jail. He has been facing the

agony of criminal prosecution for the last about ten years. He is a first offender and required to look after his aged father Mohinder Kumar besides

running his own household. Therefore, the remaining sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him.

Learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner cheated complainant Ranjana Singla of an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- by making a false

promise to her to send her son Amit to a foreign country. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence.

However, he has placed on record the custody certificate, as per which the petitioner has already undergone one year, three months and twenty

nine days in jail out of the sentence of two years imposed upon him.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner

behind the bars, once again, for undergoing his sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the remaining substantive sentence

of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him.

Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence u/s 420 IPC is maintained and his remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment is

reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-, which be

deposited by him with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six

months.

The revision is, accordingly, disposed of.