Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 963 (PNJ)

Prem Chand v. State of Haryana

2005-09-07

SURYA KANT

body2005
ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Criminal Revision has been directed against the judgment and order date 11/12.11.1991 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh holding the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for six months as well as against the judgment dated 1.4.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak whereby petitioners appeal against the aforementioned judgment and order was dismissed. 2. As per the prosecution case, in the intervening night of 12/13.2.1986, a Fiat car bearing No. HRY-614 belonging to one Ramesh Kumar, while it was parked in the lane of Aggarwal Colony, Bahadurgarh, in front of the house of Shambhu Dayal-father of Ramesh Kumar, was stolen. The said Shambhu Dayal made a written complaint on 13.2.1986, which led to registration of the FIR on 23.4.1986. The aforesaid car bearing a fictitious No. HYO-6342 was recovered from the petitioner (Prem Chand) at New Delhi by the officers of the Delhi Police. It was taken into possession under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code as a suspected stolen property; Bahadurgarh police was informed which in turn arrested the petitioner along with his co-accused Sri Om. Both were thereafter sent to face trial and were charged under Sections 379/411 Indian Penal Code. 3. On the basis of he evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial Magistrate having found that none of the witnesses deposed against Sri Om for taking the stolen car No. HRY-614 into possession, he was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted of the charges. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the learned trial Magistrate held that though the prosecution failed to make out a case under Section 379 Indian Penal Code but having regard to the fact that he was apprehended red-handed while in possession of the stolen car and had also affixed a fictitious number plate in order o sell the same for gains, he was held guilty of an offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and was accordingly sentenced, as referred to above. 4. The petitionerss appeal also having been dismissed, he approached this Court through this revision petition which was admitted on 10.4.1992 and while suspending the sentence, he was directed to be released on bail. 5. 4. The petitionerss appeal also having been dismissed, he approached this Court through this revision petition which was admitted on 10.4.1992 and while suspending the sentence, he was directed to be released on bail. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Shambhu Dayal-the complaint as PW-1, who deposed regarding the theft of car owner by his son in the intervening nigh of 12/13.2.1986. Ramesh Kumar-the owned of the car also appeared as PW-2 and affirmed the fact regarding theft of his car bearing registration No. HRY-614. He also deposed that the car recovered with fictitious registration No. HYO-6342 was the one which actually belonged to him. PW-3 Sher Singh, Clerk in the SDM, Bahadurgarh brought the record and deposed regarding allotment of registration NO. HYO-6342 to a vehicle bearing the same Engine and Chasis number, on the basis of which registration No. HRY-614 was allotted to Ramesh Kumar (PW-2). PW-5 SI Om Prakash and PW-6 ASI Paras Nath of Delhi Police deposed regarding the recovery of stolen car from the petitionerss possession on 23.4.1986. PW-7 is ASI Hoshiar Singh of CIA Staff, Bahadurgarh, who investigated the case whereas PW-8 ASI Bhoj Raj had recorded the FIR on receipt of the complaint from Shambhu Dayal (PW-1). 6. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code pleaded innocence and also led defence evidence which included the documents, i.e., copies of statements (Ex. D1 and D2) made by ASI Paras Nath and HC Vijay Kumar in some other case. On appreciation of the aforementioned evidence, the learned Courts below have returned a concurrent finding of fact that though no offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code was made out but having regard to the fact that the petitioner was found in possession of the stolen property, i.e., vehicle in question, the registration number of which has also been deliberately changed with a fictitious number plate in order to sell the same for personal gains, offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner. 7. 7. In support of this revision petition, firstly, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that ASI Laxmi Narain, who is alleged to have recognized the car to be the stolen property of Ramesh Kumar (PW-2) has not been produced as a witness by the prosecution and in the absence of this link evidence, charge under Section 411 Indian Penal Code cannot sustain against the petitioner. It is also contended that as per the statements of PW-5 (SI Om Prakash) and PW-6 (ASI Paras Nath), the petitioner was apprehended along with one more person, namely his co-accused Sri Om with the stolen car and since his co- accused has already been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the charge against the petitioner also cannot sustain. In order to implore compassion for the petitioner it is contended that (i) the petitioner has already undergone a small part of the total sentence; (ii) he was released on bail more than 13 years back; (iii) there is no complaint of misusing the concession of bail; and (iv) the case in hand is the solitary accusation against the petitioner, therefore, it is a fit case to invoke powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release him on probation. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel, has argued that there is over- whelming evidence on record to establish beyond doubt that the petitioner was apprehended by the officials of Delhi police while he was in possession of the stolen car with fictitious number plate and as such no interference in the concurrent findings of fact, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court is called for. It is also contended that having regard to the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, especially his intention to dispose of the stolen property through fictitious number plate, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court on the quantum of punishment. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 10. It stands established beyond doubt from the statements pf PW-1 and PW-2 that the Fiat car bearing registration No. HRY-614 (Engine No. PA-877933, Chasis No. PA-879883) was stolen. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 10. It stands established beyond doubt from the statements pf PW-1 and PW-2 that the Fiat car bearing registration No. HRY-614 (Engine No. PA-877933, Chasis No. PA-879883) was stolen. It further stands established from the statement of Sher Singh (PW-3) who is an official of the SDM Office, Bahadurgarh that the number of Fiat Car bearing the aforesaid Engine and Chasis number, was got changed to HYO-6342. From the statements of PW-5 (SI Om Prakash) and PW-6 (ASI Paras Nath) it further stands established that it was the petitioner who was found in possession of the stolen vehicle while he was driving same in Delhi. The chain of events, thus, from the stage of theft of the car, change of its registration number and recovery thereof from the petitioner has been established beyond any doubt. Neither any motive has been attributed to the aforesaid witnesses nor there appears to be any reason for them to falsely implicate the petitioner. The Courts below, on a close analysis of the evidence of these witnesses, and rightly so, have held that the petitioner by retaining the stolen car and thereafter by securing a fictitious number thereof so as to sell the same for personal gains, has committed an offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. No. interference is, thus, called for by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below regarding guilt and consequential conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 Indian Penal Code are accordingly upheld. 11. Coming to the last contention as to whether or not the petitioner should be released on probation, having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which the fictitious registration number was obtained and attempt to dispose of the same for dishonest monetary gains was made by the petitioner, though, he does not deserve any leniency so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, however, having regard to the one mitigating circumstance, namely, the pendency of this revision petition for a long period of 13 years, during which period the petitioner does not appear to have misused the concession of bail, I am inclined to show some leniency towards him. Consequently, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years as awarded by the Courts below to the petitioner is reduced to one year RI, however, the fine of Rs. 2,000/-, imposed upon him by the Courts below is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The impugned judgments dated 11/12.11.1991 and 1.4.1992 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, are modified to the above extent. The petitioner is directed to deposit the enhanced fine within a period of one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which he will be required to undergo the entire sentence of two years as awarded by the Courts below. 12. Bail bonds of the petitioner are cancelled and he be taken into custody to undergo the remainder of the sentence in compliance of this order. This revision petition is partly allowed in the manner indicated above. Petition partly allowed.