Crl.Rev.No.506 of 2001 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No.506 of 2001
Date of Decision: 3 - 3 - 2009
Satish Kumar .....Petitioner
v.
State of Punajb .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr.A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of Satish
Kumar son of Chuni Lal. He has been convicted under Section 3 of the
Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter to be
referred as, `the Act’) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months by the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Amritsar.
Case of the prosecution is that on 23.5.1991, ASI Kartar Singh
along with his companion officials had gone to Beas Railway Station. He
was informed by Constables Gurjit Singh and Dayal Singh that on last
Crl.Rev.No.506 of 2001 [2]
night, buffers and brake blocks in the yard were stolen. They also informed
that informer gave secret information that the property has been carried in a
blue colour Tempo at 12.30 p.m. towards Amritsar. ASI Kartar Singh
accompanied by his companion officials on a Tempo started towards
Amritsar. They found stolen goods in a Tempo at Rayya near the shop of a
scrap dealer. They over-powered Rattan Lal driver of the Tempo. Rattan
Lal disclosed that stolen property had been sold at the shop of Satish
Kumar, scrap dealer. He further stated that Amarjit Singh alias Raju had
stolen the property and sold the same to Satish Kumar, scrap dealer. The
stolen property was produced by Satish Kumar before ASI Kartar Singh. It
was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Satish Kumar and Rattan
Lal were arrested.
Complainant had led pre-charge evidence and examined
G.S.Vaid, CPU as PW-1, HC Lakha Singh PW-2 and ASI Kartar Singh PW-
3. Thereafter, charge was framed. The prosecution witnesses were further
called for evidence and were cross-examined. Complainant had further
examined Mathura Dass as PW-4 after framing of the charge.
Allegation against the petitioner is that police recovered four
buffers and four brake blocks from his shop. Petitioner is a scrap dealer.
The Courts below relied upon testimonies of ASI Kartar Singh and HC
Lakha Singh to believe that recovery of stolen articles was effected from the
shop of Satish Kumar. A confessional statement of Satish Kumar Ex.PJ was
recorded. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced Satish Kumar
and Amarjit Singh under Section 3 of the Act and sentenced them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous
Crl.Rev.No.506 of 2001 [3]
imprisonment for three months. Co-accused Avtar Singh was given benefit
of doubt and was acquitted.
Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner
filed an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
Notice of motion was issued and it was noticed that Ex.PJ
confessional statement of Satish Kumar recorded by ASI Kartar Singh
cannot be relied against him. Even if, the confessional statement is ignored,
there is evidence of recovery of railway property from the shop of the
petitioner.
Presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act
can be drawn against the petitioner. Section 114(a) and Illustration (a) to
Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act read as under:-
“The Court may presume –
(a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon
after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods
knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his
possession;
——
As to illustration(a)- A shopkeeper has in his till a
marked rupee soon after it was stolen, and cannot accunt for its
possession specifically, but is continually receiving rupees in
the course of his business;”
Two Courts below have returned findings of fact. Therefore,
ignoring the statement Ex.PJ, the very fact that the railway property was
recovered from the petitioner is sufficient to hold that petitioner is guilty of
Crl.Rev.No.506 of 2001 [4]
the offence. Section 3 of the Act prescribes minimum sentence of one year
and a fine which shall not be less than Rs.1,000/-. The fact that minimum
sentence is prescribed, shall not exclude the provisions of Probation of
Offenders Act. It has been held that Probation of Offenders Act is a
milestone in the progress of modern liberalization trend of reform. In the
present case, occurrence pertain to 23.5.1991. Petitioner has already
suffered a protracted trial of about 18 years. No useful purpose would be
served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, the
petitioner is ordered to be released on probation under the Probation of
Offenders Act for a period of one year on his furnishing bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court. He shall appear and receive sentence when
called upon during the period of one year and is directed to keep peace and
be of good behaviour. However, costs of litigation is assessed Rs.30,000/-
and the amount of costs of litigation shall be disbursed to the Indian
Railways as compensation. The trial Court shall call upon the accused-
petitioner to furnish requisite bonds and deposit costs of litigation.
With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, revision
petition is disposed off.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
March 3, 2009. JUDGE
RC