CIVIL APPEAL 661 of 1993 on 3 May 1991

Criminal Revision No.661 of 1993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 661 of 1993 Date of Decision: January 07,2010

Hamid Ali

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

Versus

State of Haryana

..........Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mr.Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana**

Sabina, J.

Petitioner was convicted under Section 363 of the IndianPenal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 3.5.1991 by the JudicialMagistrate Ist Class Panipat. Vide order of even date, petitioner wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. .Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same wasdismissed and the sentence of three years imposed by the trial Court wasreduced to two years by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat videjudgment dated 20.9.1993. Hence, the present revision petition.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present appealare that Kamlesh Rani (PW4) wife of Vijay Kumar Malhotra isthe daughter of Krishna Devi sister of Darshan Lal complainantPW1. Kamlesh Rani has been residing at Panipat and has one sonand one daughter. Manu aged two and a half years is the name ofson of Kamlesh Rani.

3. The version factually alleged against the appellant, in brief, inso far as relevant was that on 14[th] May, 1987 Darshan Lal PW1was sitting in the house of Kamlesh Rani PW4. Her son Manuwas playing in street. In the meantime at about 5.30 P.M.appellant came and lifted Manu in his lap and run away. Manucried. After hearing his screaks, Ashok Kumar PW2 and OmParkash son of Ram Kishan followed and apprehended theappellant along with the child. In all, it has been alleged that theappellant had kidnapped Manu minor son of Kamlesh Rani. Onthe basis of aforesaid allegations, the present case was registeredagainst the appellant on the basis of statement Ex.PA of DarshanLal PW1.

4. After completing all the Codal formalities, the appellant wascharge sheeted and was put to trial.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course ofarguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section363 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reducedto already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has furthersubmitted that the petitioner was suffering from schizophrenia. Theincident relates to the year 1987. The child was recovered immediately.

Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by thelearned 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 363IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of thepetitioner is reduced to already undergone by him.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

January 07, 2010arya

(Sabina) Judge