Jagdish Shanker And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 February, 2009

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh


                                             Crl. Revision No. 866 of 2002
                                        Date of decision: February 13, 2009

Jagdish Shanker and others
                                                  ... Petitioners

                        Vs.

State of Punjab and another
                                                  ... Respondents

Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

Present:    Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate Amicus Curiae
            for the petitioners.
            Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab.

A.N. Jindal, J

Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 24.4.2002 passed

by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissing the appeal filed

by the appellant-accused against the judgment dated 25.4.2000 passed by

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib convicting and

sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and

to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property

Unlawful Possession Act, 1966.

Briefly stated, the facts as culled out from the complaint are

that on 30.6.1990 at about 5.00 a.m. when the police party was going to

check trains standing at Line No.7, they saw the accused coming from the

western side with rickshaw-rehri. Accused Jagdish Shanker was holding its

handle and accused Sohan Lal was pushing it. Accused Charan Dass was

holding another Rickshaw rehri and accused Ram Sanjiwan was pushing it.

Amarjit Singh accused was holding third rickshaw rehri and Hari Kishan

accused was pushing it. On suspicion, they were apprehended and on

interrogation they disclosed that they had removed pig iron from the open
Crl. Revision No. 866 of 2002 -2-

box of railway which was stalled just near the site. On weighment, one

rehri was found to contain 202 kgs of pig iron, second rehri 212 kgs pig iron

and third rehri 255 kgs of pig iron. The stolen goods were taken into

possession. The accused were arrested. After completion of the

investigation, a complaint under Section 3 (a) of Railway Property

(Unlawful Possession), Act, 1966 was presented in the Court.

On trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced

accordingly. The appeal preferred by them also failed.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

Nothing has been found on the facts to say in favour of the

accused. Sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution in order to

connect them with the commission of an offence under Section 3 (A) of the

Railway Property (Unlawful Possession), Act, 1966. The evidence has been

duly appreciated by the trial court. Learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh

Sahib also approved the same. The findings of fact returned by both the

courts below cannot be gone into unless the judgment is perverse or on

misreading of evidence. Under these circumstances, the judgment of

conviction passed against the petitioner stand confirmed.

As a last resort, learned counsel for the petitioners has pleaded

for taking some lenient view in the matter.

Having examined the case qua this aspect, I am of the

considered opinion that the petitioners had stolen the railway property

which they were taking while carrying in their respective rickshaw rehris

and the said stolen property was recovered from them. The occurrence took

place way back in the year 1990. They have already suffered a lot of agony

on account of the protracted trial. Admittedly, they are first offenders and as
Crl. Revision No. 866 of 2002 -3-

such ends of justice would be met if they are released on probation and are

burdened with costs of litigation.

In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed and the sentence

is modified to the extent that they are released on probation under Section 4

(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on their executing a bond in the

sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the

satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib for a period of

one year within which period they shall keep peace and be of good

behaviour and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they shall be

ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, they are also

ordered to pay Rs.5000/- each on account of costs of litigation within three

months failing which this revision petition shall be treated as dismissed in

toto.

Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate, Amicus Curiae may claim his

remuneration as per rules.

February 13, 2009                                        (A.N. Jindal)
deepak                                                         Judge