CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHAMAN Lal petitioner was tried by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar, who vide his order dated 11th of April, 1991, convicted Chaman Lal under Sections 420/406/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four months under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was partly allowed to the extent that he was acquitted of the charge under Section 420 of the Indian penal Code whereas the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Sections 406 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was maintained. Aggrieved against the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below the petitioner has filed the present revision petition in which notice to the State was also sent qua quantum sentence to be awarded to the petitioner as well as whether benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act can be granted to the petitioner or not.

(2.) IN brief facts of the prosecution case are that Sumitra complainant used to pay Rs. 400/- per month to Chaman Lal petitioner for the last about four years. The petitioner was running business of Committees by inducing the members of the committee to contribute specific sum of money every month. Sumitra had been contributing Rs. 400/- per month for four members. Out of these four Committees she got released two committees for which a sum of Rs. 9,000/- was payable to her. Against this amount the petitioner paid only Rs. 1,500/- to her and that too in a period of eight months. On 8th of March, 1987, said complainant went to the petitioner to demand the remaining amount of her committees. The petitioner who was in drunken condition misbehaved with the complainant and turned her out of his house. The complainant narrated the entire occurrence to Daya Ram Ministry who too was a member of Committee run by the petitioner. Since the petitioner refused to pay any amount to the complainant, she made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar and on its basis formal first information report was subsequently registered against the petitioner. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner was challenged, tried, convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner affidavit of Sumitra Devi has been placed on record wherein it is mentioned that Sham Lal on behalf of his brother Chaman Lal (petitioner) compromised with her regarding the dispute with Chaman Lal and had paid, Rs. 16,000/- in cash to her in full and final settlement of the dispute with Chaman Lal. It is further mentioned that at present she has no claim against Chaman Lal petitioner.