Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 970 (PNJ)

Harbhajan Singh v. State Of Haryana

2001-09-04

K.C.GUPTA

body2001
Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This revision is directed by the petitioner, Harbhajan Singh, against the judgment dated 3.8.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby he dismissed the appeal except modifying the sentence to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- instead of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Dharam Pal, complainant, was in possession of a shop No. B-215, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, as a tenant, whose owner was the petitioner. However, the petitioner was residing in his residential house on the back side of the shop. The owner (petitioner) demolished his house and in that process also demolished backside of the shop. The complaint lodged report Ex.PA with the police on 29.12.1996, upon which formal FIR Ex.PW4/A was registered. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the Court. 3. Having made out a prima-facie case, petitioner was charged under Sections 453/427 IPC on 10.6.1997, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution produced its evidence. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegation of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. In defence, he examined DW1-Gurcharan Singh. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel, the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted vide judgment dated 12.6.2000 and was sentenced vide order dated 13.6.2000 under Section 453 Cr.P.C. to R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide judgment dated 3.8.2001 except that the sentence was modified as stated above. 6. Still dis-satisfied, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 7. I have heard Sh. Vikram Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana, and carefully gone through the file 8. Counsel for the petitioner has not contested the revision petition on merits. 6. Still dis-satisfied, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 7. I have heard Sh. Vikram Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana, and carefully gone through the file 8. Counsel for the petitioner has not contested the revision petition on merits. He stated that the case is pending for more than five years and the petitioner has suffered pain and agony for this long period and further there was no intention on his part to demolish the back portion of the shop of the complainant but he had only demolished his residential house to get it constructed again and in that process, back portion of the shop had also fallen down. He further contended that there was no allegation that he had removed any goods belonging to the complaint. He also stated that the petitioner is aged about 63 years and is first offender, so, a lenient view be taken against him. 9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it is a fit case where concession of probation should be allowed to the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence is set-aside and instead of sentencing him to any imprisonment, he is released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. if he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety of the like amount to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. The fine which he has already paid is converted into prosecution expenses as the prosecution must have attended more than dozen hearings to lead evidence and to do other things. The necessary bond be furnished within fortnight before the Illaqa Magistrate. 10. With this modification the revision petition is dismissed. 11. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court. Revision dismissed.