- (1.) Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, complainant Sukhdev Chand son of Didar Chand respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant") instituted a private complaint against petitioner Roop Chand son of Khazan Chand and his co-convict Piara Lal son of Inder Ram, for having committed the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471/34 and 120-B IPC.
(2.) Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court convicted & sentenced the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each for the commission of offence punishable under section 467 read with section 120-B IPC; to undergo RI for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each under section 468 read with section 120-B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each u/s 471 read with section 120-B IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.7.2008.
(3.) Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence, both the convicts filed the appeal. Although the appellate Court has accepted the appeal filed by Piara Lal convict, but dismissed the appeal of petitioner-convict, by means of impugned judgment dated 26.5.2011.;