CIVIL APPEAL 1607 of 2005 on 3 October 2002

Criminal Revision No.1607 of 2005 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 1607 of 2005 (O&M)Date of Decision:May 13, 2010

Sukhpal Singh

...........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

..........Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mr.Munish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab**

Sabina, J.

Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 411 of theIndian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 3.10.2002 by theAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate Fatehgarh Sahib. Vide order of evendate, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- . Aggrieved by the same,petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was partly dismissed withregard to the point of charge of receiving stolen drill (Ex.P1) by theappellant in his possession dishonestly, by Additional Sessions JudgeFatehgarh Sahib vide judgment dated 16.7.2005. Hence, the present revision petition.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 9.7.1998,the police party headed by SI Paramjit Singh alongwith otherpolice officials was present at Madhopur Chowk in connectionwith Nakabandi. That at that time, SI Paramjt Singh received asecret information that a drill which was stolen in the night nearworkshop by Talwinder Singh and Sukhpal Singh appellant wasbeing transported on motor cycle by them to Patiala for its sale.In the meantime, Gurmeet Singh son of Gurbachan Singh,blacksmith was called thereat, a motor cycle no.PB-12-B-0004came from the side of Sirhind which was being driven byTalwinder Singh and the person sitting behind it Sukhpal Singhappellant was carrying something weighty on his thighs like bag.They were intercepted by the police party and on search, a drillwas recovered bearing inscription GS and Gurmeet Singh waswritten in english on the motor. Heavy Duty Drill, Drill no. 023-13, Code 235V, F/L Amps, 255, N/b RMP 560, Ralli Wolf Ltd.Bombay-40080, Made in India was written on it. Gurmeet Singhson of Gurbachan Singh identified it to be his stolen property.The motor cycle no PB-12-B 0004 was taken into policepossession as appellant failed to produce any documents for theirlawful possession. Ruqa was sent and case was registered. Themotor cycle was subsequently then found to be stolen fromRajindra Hospital, Patiala in December, 1997 of Dr.Gagandep Criminal Revision No.1607 of 2005 (O&M)

Singh. The investigating officer prepared the rough site plan ofthe place of recovery. He recorded the statements of thewitnesses. On completion of investigation of the case, challanwas presented against the appellants in the trial court.”

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for thepetitioner, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section411 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced toalready undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that thefine has already been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel hasfurther submitted that the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings sincethe year 1998 and has undergone 1½ months of actual sentence. He is theonly bread earner of his family.

Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence quaimprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner.

Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of thepetitioner is reduced to already undergone by him.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

May 13, 2010arya

(Sabina) Judge