MANGAT DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mangat Dass s/o Maghar Dass caste Mahant r/o Bakhora Kalan, Ex Secretary CASS, Bakhora Kalan, P.S. Moonak, District Sangrur, has filed the present criminal writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of appropriate writ directing that the sentences awarded in challan Nos. 179 of 16.8.2002, 170 of 16.8.2002, 171 of 16.8.2002, 177 of 16.8.2002, 178 of 16.8.2002 and 180 of 16.8.2002 arising out of the same FIR No. 86 dated 11.7.2001 under sections 408, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Moonak, be ordered to run concurrently in terms of Section 427 Cr.P.C. and to grant benefit of Set-Off as provided under section 428 Cr.P.C. Petitioner - Mangat Dass was Ex-Secretary of CASS Bakhora Kalan. FIR No. 86 dated 11.7.2001 under sections 408, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC was registered at Police Station Moonak, against the petitioner with the allegation that as Secretary, he has embezzled certain amount. Total 6 challans bearing Nos. 179 of 16.8.2002, 170 of 16.8.2002, 171 of 16.8.2002, 177 of 16.8.2002, 178 of 16.8.2002 and 180 of 16.8.2002 were filed against the petitioner and all the cases were tried simultaneously and petitioner was convicted by SDJM, Moonak. The petitioner filed 6 appeals i.e. Appeal No. 96 of 21.4.2009 in challan case No. 179, Appeal No. 93 of 21.4.2009 in challan case No. 170, Appeal No. 92 of 21.4.2009 in challan case No. 171, Appeal No. 94 of 21.4.2009 in challan case No. 177, Appeal No. 95 of 21.4.2009 in challan case No. 178, Appeal No. 97 of 21.4.2009 in challan case No. 180, against the said judgments and Additional Sessions Judge , Sangrur vide judgment dated 26.7.2010 dismissed all the appeals.

(2.) Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgments in appeal dated 26.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur and judgments dated 2.4.2009, passed by SDJM, Moonak, the petitioner filed 6 revision petitions. This Court vide judgments dated 25.8.2010 Annexures P-1 to P-6, passed the following operative order:- "For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction is maintained and the order of sentence is modified, in the manner, that the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 months and 10 days on each count, instead of 2 years on each count, awarded to him, by the Courts below. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the fine, which was imposed on the petitioner, was deposited by him, at the time of filing the appeal. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(3.) The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the judgment immediately keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C."