Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1996 (PNJ)

Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-07-08

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2010
JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral):- This is a revision petition against the judgement dated 09.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) (Fast Track Court) Mansa and Judgement and order dated 08.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code for a period of six months. 2. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, vide judgement and order dated 10.08.2010 convicted and sentenced the petitioner-Bhola Singh and others (Leela Singh, Kala Singh, Bogha Singh and Baldev Singh) for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one six months each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of making of fine, the convicts were also ordered to undergo further RI for one month. Petitioner-Bhola Singh was also convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of making payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo RI for one month. 3. Aggrieved, petitioner - Bhola Singh and others convicts, namely, Leela Singh, Kala Singh, Bogha Singh and Baldev Singh filed appeal against the aforesaid judgement. The additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa, vide judgement dated 09.04.2010 acquitted the petitioner and others for an offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code but the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for an offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code was upheld. However, the sentence of the petitioner was reduced to six months from one year under section 411 IPC with no change in the payment of fine and in defaulting clause. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that complainant-Jaswinder Singh, Forest Guard, Bhaini Beat submitted an application dated 19.05.2002 to the SHO, Police Station Mansa, stating therein that while patrolling at canal of Kotla Branch on his motorcycle, one Sonalika Tractor along with Trolley was parked on the left side of Burji No. 287 and 88. Petitioner - Bhola Singh along with other accused, namely, Leela Singh, Kala Singh, Bogha Singh and Baldev Singh were cutting shisham trees with saw. They were known to the complainant. It was also reported that the accused had also kept two shisham trees in the trolley and were cutting remaining trees. Petitioner - Bhola Singh along with other accused, namely, Leela Singh, Kala Singh, Bogha Singh and Baldev Singh were cutting shisham trees with saw. They were known to the complainant. It was also reported that the accused had also kept two shisham trees in the trolley and were cutting remaining trees. He went to call other persons as he was alone. On returning, he noticed that from left side of burji No. 287-88 shisham trees bearing No. 158 and 162 were found cut and removed. Shisham tree No. 165 and ‘toot’ tree No. 155 from this Burji and shisham tree bearing No. 117 from Burji No. 291-92 were also found fallen on the ground. On investigation, the stolen property of wooden logs was recovered from the possession of petitioner -Bhola Singh. A disclosure was made by him Ex. PA and the said recovery of wooden logs was effected from his possession in pursuance to the said disclosure statement. Bhola Singh failed to justify the possession of these wooden logs. This is a revision petition and the revisional Court has limited jurisdiction. Even otherwise, no infirmity was pointed out in the well reasoned judgements passed by both the Courts below. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed and the conviction of the petitioner is accordingly upheld. 5. Notice was issued qua sentence only. It is not denied that the petitioner is the first offender. Moreover, the recovery from Bhola Singh was of only two wooden logs. He is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 9 years. He is already undergone three months of sentence out of total period of six months awarded to him. Thus, the petitioner has already undergone substantial period of his sentence. He is the only earning member of his family and is stated to be having small children to look after. Accordingly, he is ordered to be released forthwith on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offender’s Act for the remaining period of sentence on the terms and conditions as imposed by the trial Court. However, there shall be no change in the fine amount and defaulting clause. The present revision petition is dismissed except for modification in the sentence of the petitioner as above. ------------