Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2176 (PNJ)

Krishan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2009-12-15

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2009
Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. This judgment disposes of both the above-mentioned revision petitions as the same have arisen out of the same judgment dated 20.11.2002 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which the appeal against the judgment dated 22.12.1999 rendered by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, convicting the present revision- petitioners for offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 months each, was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that a case was registered against the present revision-petitioners on 06.02.1996 on the receipt of information that articles made of iron were being stolen from Thermal Plant, Lehra Mohabbat and that the present revision-petitioners used to purchase the said material. Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch and Sukhpal Singh son of Darshan Singh were joined in the investigation and raid was conducted on the shop of the revision-petitioners. 20 iron plates, one iron gun, one iron channel, iron rods, cable wires and some other material were recovered from the accused in the presence of Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch. Co-accused Dilbag Singh was arrested oil 09.12.1996 and as per his disclosure statement, 2 iron rods were recovered in the presence of Balwant Singh, Nambardar. Statements of Surinder Singh, J.E., Ajmer Singh, J.E. and another official Chetan Gupta were recorded regarding the identification of the property. Co-accused Gurbachan Singh was arrested and some recovery was also effected from him as per his disclosure statement. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the present revision-petitioners. Accused were charged accordingly to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined PW 1 Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch; PW2 Chetan Gupta; PW3 Ajmer Singh; PW4 Nachhattar Singh, J.E.; PW5 Surinder Singh, J.E.; PW6 Pirthi Singh; PW7 Rachhpal Singh, Sub-Inspector; PW8 Mukhtiar Singh, Asstt. Sub-Inspector; and PW9 Gurdarshan Singh, Head Constable. 4. It may be mentioned here that accused Dilbagh Singh and Gurbachan Singh died during the pendency of the case and proceedings against them were dropped. 5. Learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the present revision petitioners as aforementioned. Sub-Inspector; and PW9 Gurdarshan Singh, Head Constable. 4. It may be mentioned here that accused Dilbagh Singh and Gurbachan Singh died during the pendency of the case and proceedings against them were dropped. 5. Learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the present revision petitioners as aforementioned. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment, appeal was filed by the present revision-petitioners in the court of Sessions, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and hence, the present revision petition. 6. I have heard Mr. M.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the revision- petitioners and Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the whole record. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioners that the articles allegedly recovered from the possession of the revision- petitioners are easily available in the market and there was no specific mark of identification and hence, it is argued that there was no intention on the part of the revision-petitioners to receive the stolen property. However, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revision- petitioners on the point. The property which belongs to Punjab State Electricity Board, duly identified by PW5 - Surinder Singh, Junior Engineer, has been recovered from the possession of the accused. Further there is statement of PW3 - Ajmer Singh that the wire was stolen from the site. There is also a statement of PW4 - Nachhatar Singh, who identified the articles which have been issued from the store. Hence, the courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that the present revision-petitioners were receivers of the stolen property i.e. the property that was stolen from the store of PSEB. 8. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to re- appreciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. 9. Both the courts below have found the evidence of the prosecution convincing and reliable. The offence has been proved by oral as well as documentary evidence. 9. Both the courts below have found the evidence of the prosecution convincing and reliable. The offence has been proved by oral as well as documentary evidence. Hence, no fault can be found with the judgments of conviction passed by learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court. 10. So far as order of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the revision-petitioners that they have been facing agony oftrial since 06.02.1996 i.e. for the last about 14 years and hence, it is argued that they should be given benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 11. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. The present revision-petitioners have been facing agony of trial forthe last about 14 years. The offence under Section 411 IPC is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to three years only. The present revision petitioners are not previous convict. Hence, there is nothing as to why they should be denied the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. 12. Hence, order of sentence passed by the courts below sentencing the present revision petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months each, is set aside. Instead of sentencing the accused to imprisonment, it is, hereby, ordered that they be released on probation for a period of one year subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate undertaking to maintain peace and be of good behaviour during the said period and be called upon to receive sentence in case of breach of any condition of the bond. 13. Hence, except modification in the quantum of sentence as aforementioned, the present revision petitions are hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.