IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : March 25, 2011. Crl. Revision No. 495 of 2005 Raj Kumar son of Sh. Gokal Chand, resident of Gali No. 4, Gandhi Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib ......... Petitioner Versus. State of Punjab ....... Respondent Crl. Revision No. 335 of 2005 Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Ram Parkash r/o Gali No. 4, Gandhi Nagar Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib ........... Petitioner Versus. State of Punjab ....... Respondent Crl. Revision No. 314 of 2005 1. Onkar Singh son of Shri Lekh Raj, resident of H. No. 27, Gali No. 10, Gandhi Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib 2. Ajay Kumar son of Shri Laxmi Narain, resident of Gali No. 10, Gandhi Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib ........... Petitioners Versus. State of Punjab ....... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL. Present:- Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, with, Mr. Sandeep Gehalawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG Punjab, for the respondent-State. M. JEYAPAUL, J. (ORAL) A1-Pawan Kumar, A2-Raj Kumar, A3-Onkar Singh, and A4-Ajay Kumar faced the trial before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Crl. Revision No. 495 of 2005 and other connected cases -2- Amloh, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ' the IPC'). A3-Onkar Singh and A4-Ajay Kumar have jointly filed Criminal Revision No. 314 of 2005, whereas A1-Pawan Kumar and A2-Raj Kumar have filed separate Criminal Revisions No. 335 of 2005 and 495 of 2005 respectively. All the four accused were convicted for offence under Section 420 IPC and were sentenced to undergo two years each rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to undergo a further period of one month. They were convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. They were also convicted under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. All the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 468 IPC. 2. It is a case of theft of iron scrap materials from M/s Modern Steel Limited by its own employees, namely, Pawan Kumar, Raj Kumar, Onkar Singh, and Ajay Kumar (petitioners herein). 3. The prosecution could lead material evidence to establish the aforesaid charges framed as against the accused. Therefore, they were convicted as stated supra by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh. The matter was taken up in appeal by the aggrieved accused, but the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, having concurred with the verdict passed by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein. Hence the present revisions. 4. Learned senior counsel Shri Bipan Ghai appearing for the petitioners herein would submit that the petitioners though challenged the conviction part of the judgment pronounced by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, they have now restricted their prayer with respect to Crl. Revision No. 495 of 2005 and other connected cases -3- the quantum of sentence awarded to them by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. That was the reason why this Court has not gone in detail the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners who had no criminal antecedents. They were booked for the major offence under Section 420 IPC. As the scrap iron materials were already recovered, there was no financial loss for the Company. As such, the petitioners being the first offenders may be released on probation. Alternatively, senior learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in case this Court was not inclined to release the petitioners on probation, the sentence already undergone by the petitioners herein may be treated as sufficient sentence for the offences stood proved as against the petitioners. 6. Per contra, learned DAG appearing for the State would submit that the prosecution could establish without any pale of doubt that the petitioners committed theft of scrap materials from the godown of its own employer and such persons shall not be released on probation, despite the fact that they were first offenders. It is his further submission, placing on record custody certificates of the accused/petitioners Ajay Kumar and Raj Kumar, that they have just completed 48 and 73 days respectively in prison and therefore the fraction of sentence already undergone by the petitioners herein cannot be imposed upon the petitioners. 7. I considered the submissions made on either side. 8. A case of theft as against the petitioners had originated way back in the year 1994. Seventeen years have lapsed from the date when the First Information Report was formally registered as against the petitioners. The petitioners have spent almost seventeen long years contesting the charge Crl. Revision No. 495 of 2005 and other connected cases -4- of theft levelled as against them before one Court or the other. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that 42 tonnes of scrap materials alleged to have been lifted from the very employer of the petitioners had already been recovered. The fact remains that no financial loss had occasioned to the complainant employer. It is on record that the petitioners who were directed to attend the enquiry by the employer failed to attend the enquiry and as a result of which their employment was already terminated by the employer. The result is that the petitioners have lost their avocations with the employer who lodged the complaint on the charge of theft. No criminal antecedents is reported as against the petitiones. 9. Under the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on probation, I find that interest of justice would be subserved, if the sentence of two years for the offence under Section 420 IPC, six months for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and one year for the offence under Section 411 IPC are reduced to the respective sentence already undergone by them. Therefore, the sentences imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 and 411 IPC are reduced to the period already undergone by the respective petitioners. The fine imposed upon the petitioners by the trial Court under Section 420 IPC is sustained. The revision petitions filed by the respective petitioners are dismissed with the above modification as regards the quantum of sentence imposed by the courts below. (M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE March 25, 2011. sjks.