None 1057 of 1997 on 8 March 1991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 1057 of 1997Date of Decision : July, 02, 2010

Balbir

Versus

....Petitioner

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present :Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate

Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 379 ofthe Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 8.3.1991 at about 5.00p.m. in the area of Bus Stand, Sadhaura, he committed theft of Rs.110/-by taking that amount out of the possession of complainant-Maha Singh.Vide judgment and order dated 10/11.10.1995, Additional Chief JudicialMagistrate, Jagadhri convicted him for the aforementioned offence andsentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and topay a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, thepetitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by AdditionalSessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar on 3.11.1997. Consequently, he wastaken into custody so as to serve the sentence imposed upon him. Hethen filed the present revision in which he was granted the concession of bail on 10.12.1997.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged theconviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC.However, he has submitted that the occurrence in question had takenplace more than nineteen years earlier. The amount said to have beenstolen by the petitioner was recovered from him when he was shown tohave been apprehended while running away from the spot. Thepetitioner is not a previous convict. He has already deposited the fineimposed upon him by the trial Court. Out of the sentence of one year,he has served an actual period of one and a half months. Therefore, thesentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner be reduced tothat already undergone by him.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed theprayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that the petitionerhad pushed the complainant while alighting from a bus at Bus StandSadhaura and in the process took out Rs.110/- from the right pocket ofthe pant worn by the complainant. He tried to run away from the spotbut was overpowered by the persons present there and the amount ofRs.110/- was recovered from him. Therefore, he does not deserve anyleniency in the matter of sentence.

When the petitioner was heard by the trial Court on thequantum of sentence, he had stated that he had small children to supportand was the only bread earner of the family. The petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the month of March,1991. From the records, it is apparent that after being taken intocustody on 8.3.1991, the petitioner was released on bail on 9.3.1991.He was again taken into custody on 3.11.1997 when his appeal againsthis conviction and sentence was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.It was only on 10.12.1997 that he was ordered to be released on bail.Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court isof the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending thepetitioner behind the bars, once again, for undergoing the remainder ofhis sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantivesentence of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him.

Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section379 IPC is upheld. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reducedto that already undergone by him.

Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence ofimprisonment to the extent as indicated above, the revision fails and is,therefore, dismissed.

July 02, 2010ajay-1

( T.P.S. MANN )JUDGE