Criminal Revision No.457 of 2006 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.457 of 2006 Date of Decision : 17.02.2011. Subhash ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Subhash-petitioner along with Nasurddin was charge sheeted for an offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the accusation that on the intervening night of December 25th/26th, 2002, he committed theft of 25 bags of Sarson (Mustard) from oil mill in the name and style M/s Chhote Lal and Sons, Loharu Road, near Railway Crossing, Bhiwani. Subsequently, the charge was altered to Section 411 IPC making the accusation that on January 31st, 2003,at Patiala Chowk, Jind, he dishonestly retained 25 bags of Sarson knowing the same to be stolen property of Ghanshyam Dass-complainant. Trial Magistrate by judgment dated February 11th, 2004, convicted the petitioner under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year, vide order dated February 12th, 2004. 2. Against the said judgment, petitioner filed appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani but the same was dismissed by judgment dated February 14th, 2006. Hence the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that alteration of the charges itself suggests that prosecution was not sure as to whether the petitioner committed the theft of 25 bags of Sarson and retained the same, having reason to believe to be stolen Criminal Revision No.457 of 2006 2 .. property. Not only that per the prosecution case, Sarson bags were not recovered from the petitioner rather those were lying in the oil mill of Dharampal. He further urged that he does not challenge the conviction and prays for reduction of the sentence on the ground that the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of about 4 months, as per record. He is not previous convict nor has he indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case and is the only bread winner of his family. 4. The aforesaid circumstances are of mitigating nature and justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 5. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 17.02.2011 neetu