JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The petitioners Paramjit Singh having been convicted under Section 411 IPC and having been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/- has filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated September 28, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar. Originally, the petitioner alongwith one Mohinder Singh was tried under Sections 392, 506, 34 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 392, 506 IPC, the aforesaid Mohinder Singh was convicted under Section 411 IPC. Whereas the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 392 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,800/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 506 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/-. The aforesaid Mohinder Singh was ordered to be released on probation. On appeal, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 392/506 IPC was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 411 IPC. However, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 411 IPC. The petitioner has now challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge after modification through the present revision petition.
2. The present provision petition was filed by the petitioner through his counsel Shri M.L. Merchea. Shri M.L. Merchea has since expired. On a request made by the Court, Shri Hemant Bassi, Advocate has very graciously accepted to act as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and to argue his case. The gesture shown by Shri Hemant Bassi is highly appreciable.
3. As per the prosecution version, on the night intervening May 28/29, 1987 at about 1.30 a.m. a theft was committed in the house of Hargo Lal. He lodged a report in the police station. He stated that he was running a Karyana shop in the village. He alongwith his wife went to sleep in the verandah whereas his son and daughter-in-law were sleeping in the room. At about 1.30 a.m. three persons came after scaling the wall and two of them had muffled faces and third was armed with a pistol. The aforesaid persons woke the residents and asked them to hand over the valuables. Those persons took seven gold bangles etc. from them. They also asked the complainant to open the cash chest and there they took certain silver items etc. Thereafter they took the key of the scooter and when they were trying to start scooter they were identified and they ran away.
4. According to the prosecution, Labh Singh produced Paramjit Singh accused before Inspector Man Singh and there Paramjit Singh (the present petitioner) had admitted that he had committed robbery alongwith one Mohinder Singh. The petitioner and Mohinder Singh were arrested. They were interrogated and during the investigation the petitioner made a disclosure statement with regard to stolen property i.e. 7 gold bangles, ear rings, one lady watch and 800 grams of silver ornaments. On a further disclosure statement, the scooter was also got recovered.
5. In appeal, the conviction of the petitioner was converted from Sections 392, 506 IPC to Section 411 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noticed that the evidence led by the prosecution was very weak evidence and further no reliance could be placed on extra judicial confession allegedly made by the Paramjit Singh. The aforesaid confession was not corroborated by any other evidence. Enmity between the petitioner and the complainant were also noticed. However, because of the disclosure statement made by the petitioner, it was found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioner was in possession of the stolen property and, therefore, he was convicted under Section 411 IPC.
6. I have heard Shri Hemant Bassi, the learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and Shri Sandeep Jain, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent.
7. It is submitted by Shri Hemant Bassi that, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge also, the evidence produced by the prosecution was very weak evidence and since most of the evidence with regard to the extra judicial confession etc. has been disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 411 IPC was also not sustainable.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter but in my considered opinion the aforesaid submission made by Shri Hemant Bassi is without any merit. The petitioner had rightly been acquitted of the charges under Sections 392, 506 IPC. However, he had made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it was only on the basis of the aforesaid disclosure statement that the recovery of stolen goods was made by the police. On that basis, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly found that the petitioner was in possession of the stolen articles. Thus, the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 411 IPC is perfectly in order. Accordingly the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 is maintained.
9. Faced with this difficulty, Shri Bassi has submitted that the occurrence in this case had taken place in the year 1987 i.e. more than 15 years back and at that time the petitioner was only 20 years of age. It is further submitted by Shri Bassi that the petitioner was granted the concession of bail by this court vide order dated October 14, 1992. Shri Sandeep Jain, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has not disputed the fact that after the concession of bail was granted to the petitioner he has not ever misused the same and has not been involved in the commission of criminal offence. In these circumstances, while maintaining the order of conviction, I set aside the order of sentence and order that the petitioner shall be released on probation. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence during the said period if and when called upon to do so.
10. With the above modification, the present petition is disposed of.