Criminal Revision No.1607 of 2005 (O&M) 1
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 the
Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) vide judgment dated 3.10.2002 by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Fatehgarh Sahib. Vide order of even
date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period 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 with
regard to the point of charge of receiving stolen drill (Ex.P1) by the
appellant in his possession dishonestly, by Additional Sessions Judge
Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment dated 16.7.2005. Hence, the present
Criminal Revision No.1607 of 2005 (O&M) 2
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 other
police officials was present at Madhopur Chowk in connection
with Nakabandi. That at that time, SI Paramjt Singh received a
secret information that a drill which was stolen in the night near
workshop by Talwinder Singh and Sukhpal Singh appellant was
being 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-0004
came from the side of Sirhind which was being driven by
Talwinder Singh and the person sitting behind it Sukhpal Singh
appellant was carrying something weighty on his thighs like bag.
They were intercepted by the police party and on search, a drill
was recovered bearing inscription GS and Gurmeet Singh was
written 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 Singh
son of Gurbachan Singh identified it to be his stolen property.
The motor cycle no PB-12-B 0004 was taken into police
possession as appellant failed to produce any documents for their
lawful possession. Ruqa was sent and case was registered. The
motor cycle was subsequently then found to be stolen from
Rajindra Hospital, Patiala in December, 1997 of Dr.Gagandep
Criminal Revision No.1607 of 2005 (O&M) 3Singh. The investigating officer prepared the rough site plan of
the place of recovery. He recorded the statements of the
witnesses. On completion of investigation of the case, challan
was presented against the appellants in the trial court.”
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section
411 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to
already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the
fine has already been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since
the year 1998 and has undergone 1½ months of actual sentence. He is the
only 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 qua
imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner.
Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411
IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the
petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Sabina)
Judge
May 13, 2010
arya