Amreek Singh vs State of Haryana

S.C. Datta, J.

This revisional application is directed against order dated 11.1.1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction of the appellant (Petitioner herein) under Sections 419/511 and 420/511 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. He further ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

The facts leading to this case may be briefly stated. One Ajit Singh was a freedom fighter and he was in receipt of pension from the government. He had drawn arrears of pension from 6/84 to 1/85 on 20.2.1985. On 23.3.1985, the petitioner impersonated said Ajit Singh and presented the relevant form for the withdrawal of pension for the month of February, 1985. He deposited the documents with the Treasury Officials and went away. On his return, the Treasury Officials became suspicious and on enquiry, it revealed that the petitioner had impersonated himself as Ajit Singh. The petitioner was put to trial and the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar convicted the appellant/petitioner under Sections 419/511 as also under Sections 420/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. He further directed the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ for the offence under Section 420/511 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the accusedpetitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Magistrate, the appellant petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentence to a period for six months only on each count of the charges.

As against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, the petitioner has filed this revisional application. In the revisional application, the petitioner has taken several grounds for setting aside the order of conviction and sentence as modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but during arguments, learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner submits that he has nothing to argue on merit. He submits that the petitioner has stood the ordeal of trial for all these years and so he may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him in this trial. He submits that the petitioner is nephew of the said Ajit Singh, freedom fighter. He further submits that the evidence against the petitioner is that he had attempted to cheat his uncle by submitting the pension papers before the Treasury Official. Accordingly, he urges that the petitioner should be dealt with leniently and he should be released forthwith.

I have also heard the learned lawyer appearing for the State. It transpires from the evidence that the petitioner attempted to draw the pension of his uncle Ajit Singh, a freedom fighter, by submitting forged papers. He, however, could not succeed because of the vigilance of the Treasury officials. He was put to trial and he had been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each of the counts. Learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to six months each. Learned Additional Sessions Judge observes that the petitioner has stood the ordeal of trial for about 7 years and as such, he is entitled to reduction of sentence. It may be remembered that the petitioner did not succeed in cheating his uncle, Ajit Singh, a freedom fighter but attempted to do so. He is in custody since 11.1.1995 i.e. since the date of delivery of the judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Any way having considered the relevant circumstances, I think the interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three months only on each count of charges. I order accordingly. The sentences shall run concurrently. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.

JUDGMENTed accordingly.