SURENDER KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, was convicted under Ss. 120-B, 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. He has sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for different periods under the aforesaid Sections. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. The High Court, on revision application being filed on behalf of the appellant set aside his conviction under S. 120-B, but the conviction and sentence under other Sections mentioned above passed by the Trial Court were affirmed.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the appellant established a firm by the name of Seemak Industrial Corporation, at Ghaziabad. The account in the bank was opened in the name of one Vijai Kumar and the aforesaid Industrial Corporation was registered in the Sales Tax Department. The appellant applied for loan before the U.P. Small Industries Corporation and got a sum of Rs. 39,352.50, in the name of Seemak Industrial Corporation. Later it was discovered that the aforesaid Seemak Industrial Corporation was a fake concern and the appellant had cheated, even the U.P. Small Industries Corporation, in respect of the amount advanced by them. The Trial Court, the Appellate Court as well as the High Court have gone into details of the materials on record for purpose of holding that the charges framed against the appellant had been established and as such there was no occasion to interfere with the conviction and sen tence passed against him.

(3.) So far the present appeal is concerned, leave was granted as early as in the year 1985 by this Court, but it has been listed for hearing after about 8 years. The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, after some arguments on merit confined his submissions to the question of sentence only. He pointed out that offences aforesaid had been committed by the appellant, as early as in the year 1973, more than 20 years from now and as such a compassionate view should be taken of the whole matter especially when the amount in respect of which the offences are alleged to have been committed is not exces sive. He pointed out that the appellant has remained in jail for some time, in pursuance of the order of conviction and sentence and as such he need not be sent to jail again. An affidavit detailing the mitigating circumstances has also been filed by the appellant before us. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, by our Order dated 26th April, 1993 we directed the appellant to first deposit an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (the loan amount) with the U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Pursuant to that Order Rs.40,000/- has been deposited with the U.P. Small Indus tries Corporation Ltd., on 4-5-1993 and original receipt granted by the Manager of the said Corporation was produced before us. The xerox copy of the said original receipt has been kept on record and the original returned to the learned counsel for the appellant. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the appellant stating about the aforesaid deposit.