JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 419 and 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") in case bearing FIR No. 47 dated 23.10.2014 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC at Police Station, City Banga, District and against the judgment dated 17.05.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has been sentenced as under:-

2. The brief facts as mentioned in the order of the trial Court reads thus:-

"The facts, which are imperative to be exposited for the disposal of the present appeal in essence are that on 25.8.2014, a complaint was moved by the Branch Manager of Indian Bank, Branch Banga to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, wherein he informed regarding the fraud committed with the Indian Bank Branch Banga, which complaint was marked to the Economic Offences Wing, Nawanshahr, wherein during inquiry, Krishan Kumar Marjara, Branch Manager of the complainant bank got his statement recorded to ASI Jasvir Singh on 2.9.2014, to the effect that on 23.5.2014, two persons approached him in the bank and disclosed their names as Manjot Singh and Amarjit Singh and they showed their willingness to avail agriculture loan and also produced fard jamabandi in the name of Amarjit Singh. Complainant had further stated that after completing the necessary formalities, mortgage deed was executed in the office of Sub-Registrar, Banga and at the time of execution of mortgage deed Jaswant Singh Lambardar identified Amarjit Singh principal debtor and Surinder Singh guarantor. It was further submitted that on 9.6.2014, an agriculture loan of J 3 lakh was sanctioned in favour of Amarjit Singh and at the time of execution of loan documents, Amarjit Singh had also submitted some identity cards. It was further submitted that the accused had even given their mobiles numbers at the time of availing loan, but after sanctioning of the loan, when the bank officials tried to contact the accused on those mobile numbers, the same were not reachable. It was further submitted by the complainant that on 21.8.2014, he obtained fard jamabandi of the mortgaged land and found that the said land was already mortgaged with Punjab and Sind Bank for a loan of Rs. 20 lakh.

3. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer only to the quantum of sentence, hence the factual aspects are not being delved into at this stage. Learned Counsel submits that the incident occurred in 2014 and petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of almost 11 years. Therefore he prays that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner may be reduced to the one already undergone by him.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has, while controverting the aforesaid submissions, argued that the guilt of the petitioner stands proved by way of cogent and convincing evidence. Counsel contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender and as per the custody certificate, there are 04 other FIRs pending against the petitioner. Further, it is imperative that harsh punishment be imposed upon the criminals so that a deterrent effect is created in the society.

5. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the case record.

Parameters and Principles of