Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1346 (PNJ)

Ram Chander v. State Of Haryana

2002-12-04

JASBIR SINGH

body2002
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.9.1989, vide which the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for commission of an offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. His appeal was dismissed by the appellate court below, vide its judgment dated 11.7.1990. That order is also under challenge in this revision petition. 2. It was the story of the prosecution that on the intervening night of 27th and 28th January, 1986, Roop Chand stayed in the house of accused-petitioner and after taking his meals he went to sleep in a room with his bag containing Rs. 75,000/-, route permit, a national permit and his bank pass-book, which kept under the pillow. In the morning, when he got up, he found the bag containing all these articles missing. On not getting satisfactory reply from the petitioner, matter was reported to the police. FIR was recorded and during investigation, above mentioned articles were recovered. On the basis of statement Ex.PA, petitioner was then challaned for commission of offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. He was charge sheeted. Prosecution then led evidence to prove its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he pleaded his false implication. Trial court, then, on perusal of evidence, found him guilty of an offence under Section 411 IPC, convicted and sentenced him as found mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of this order. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed. 3. It is apparent from the records that the stolen articles were recovered on the basis of a disclosure statement Ex.PB, Case of the prosecution is fully proved by the Statements of PW1 Roop Chand complainant, PW2 Rajinder Kumar and Investigating Officer. Petitioner had brought no evidence to show that his implication was false. In the grounds of revision, petitioner has indicated towards some discrepancies in the statements of witnesses. However, on perusal of the records, it is found that discrepancies were minor. There existed no contradiction on the basis of which, it can be said that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. In the grounds of revision, petitioner has indicated towards some discrepancies in the statements of witnesses. However, on perusal of the records, it is found that discrepancies were minor. There existed no contradiction on the basis of which, it can be said that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1986; petitioner had been facing agony of trial till September, 1989, his appeal was decided on 11.7.1990, now this revision petition had been pending since the year 1990; sword of conviction had been hanging over head of the petitioner, during this period; speedy trial is an essential right of any individual who is involved in any offence; the prosecution had been delayed and if at this stage, for offence alleged to have been committed in the year 1986, petitioners is sent behind the bars, it will have an adverse effect, not only on him but upon his family also. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not indulged in any other illegal activity after his conviction and now he is leading a disciplined life. By stating all these facts, he has prayed that sentence of the petitioner be set aside and he be ordered to be released on probation. 5. This prayer has vehemently been opposed by counsel appearing for the State. He has stated that guilt of the appellant is proved on record and punishment is in proportion to the offence committed by him and prayed that appeal by dismissed and conviction for and sentence be upheld. 6. This court is of the opinion that purpose of criminal law is to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society and also to give an opportunity an erring individual to reform himself. It is apparent from the arguments and the records that sword of conviction had been hanging over head of petitioner for the last more than 15 years. May be with the passage of time, he has reformed himself and now is living in peace and if at this stage, he is ordered to undergo the sentence awarded to him, it will rather have an adverse affect. So, the petitioner deserves leniency at the hands of this Court. 7. May be with the passage of time, he has reformed himself and now is living in peace and if at this stage, he is ordered to undergo the sentence awarded to him, it will rather have an adverse affect. So, the petitioner deserves leniency at the hands of this Court. 7. This view finds support from the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, 2000(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 7 (SC)], wherein it has been opined as under : "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and led the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." 8. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." 8. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1996(l) RCR (Criminal) 125, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, A.I.R. 1980 SC 360 and also a judgment in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1988(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 899. 9. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhis case (supra) in paragraph No. 24 has opined as under : "While we agree that adulteration of an article of food is a serious anti-social offence which must be visited with exemplary punishment, it will be rather harsh to pass a sentence of imprisonment in the facts and circumstances of this case. Under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as in force at the material time, the Court had the discretion for special and adequate reasons under proviso to sub-section (1) not to pass a sentence of imprisonment. In the instant case, the respondent is a man aged 75 years. The offence was committed on August 1, 1968 i.e., more than eleven years ago. The order of acquittal was based on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Dhanrajs case. The sample were taken from sealed tins. These are all mitigating circumstances. We accordingly, refrain from passing a substantive sentence of imprisonment and instead of sentence the respondent to the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months." To the same effect is the opinion expressed by the Honble Supreme Court in Braham Dasss case (supra), wherein paragraph No. 5, it was held as under : "Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter." Similarly, in Chander Bhans case (supra), in parea 7, it was opined by this Court that: "it is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is described by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergone on account of a protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction." This Court, by taking a note of above mentioned three judgments in Behari Lal v. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 832, gave benefit to an accused who was convicted under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and reduced his sentence to theone already undergone. 10 Keeping in view the ratio of above mentioned judgments and also the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, conviction of the petitioner is upheld, but his sentence is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of one year. He will furnish an undertaking before the trial Court below that during the period of one year, he would act like a disciplined citizen and would not indulge in any crime. He is directed to furnish bail bonds and undertaking before the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above modification, appeal stands disposed of.