Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 30 January, 2023
CRR-298-2019 (O&M) -1-
230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-298-2019 (O&M)
Decided on : 30.01.2023
Kuldeep Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. N.L.Sammi, Advocate with
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
The instant revision petition has been filed by the son of the
complainant under Section 482 r/w Section 256 Cr.PC for permission to file
revision petition on behalf of the complainant since he has died.
Challenge in the petition is to judgment dated 05.06.2018
passed by Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide which respondent No.2-accused
had been released on probation for good conduct for a period of six
months.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that
learned Lower Appellate Court had fallen into error by ordering release of
respondent No.2 on probation, by ignoring that there were serious
allegations levelled against him of furnishing a false affidavit qua his age,
number of sons and area of landed property, as a result of which, he had
been fraudulently drawing pension from the Punjab Government since
September, 2007. Learned counsel submits that the order of respondent
No.2 being released on probation be set aside and he be sentenced to the
1 of 2
CRR-298-2019 (O&M) -2-
maximum as provided for under Section 199/200 IPC.
Mr. Sanish Girdhar, AAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, has
at the outset, submitted that the petitioner has no locus to file the instant
petition as the complaint was made by Dalbir Singh, who had since expired.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgment passed by the Court below.
The petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court qua his locus to
challenge the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court,
admittedly, when he is not even the complainant in the FIR in question.
Further, this Court does not find any error in the impugned
judgment vide which conviction of the accused was maintained and he was
released on probation. Admittedly, the amount of pension, which respondent
No.2 had fraudulently got sanctioned and received by furnishing wrong
information stands deposited. Moreover, respondent No.2 is a first time
offender and has been facing a protracted trial ever since the year 2011. As
conceded by the State counsel, the accused has been leading a peaceful life
and is not involved in any other criminal case much less of a similar nature.
As a sequel to the above, this Court is not inclined to invoke its
revisional jurisdiction and set aside the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
30.01.2023 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
