In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Revision No.1162 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:26.5.2009 Fauji and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 26.3.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby their appeal against the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib convicting the petitioners for the offences under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) has been dismissed. However, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of imprisonment has been reduced for the offence under Section 457 IPC from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 380 IPC from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment and ordering the substantive sentences to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not contested the order Cr. Rev. No.1162 of 2009 [2] of the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on merit. He has, however, submitted that the petitioners are young boys and are first offenders, therefore, they are liable to be released on probation so as to enable them to reform themselves and at the same time keep a check on them for maintaining peace and be of good behaviour during the period of probation. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioners were apprehended red-handed while trying to open an electric motor of the tube-well of the complainant. Therefore, it is submitted that they are not entitled to be released on probation. It is submitted that petitioner No.1-Fauji was apprehended at the spot while, he was attempting to unscrew the tube-well motor. Some screws were also recovered from him. The prosecution case is that the complainant-Didar Singh made a statement before ASI Attar Singh which is to the effect that on 27.7.2004 at 11.30 p.m. he along with his nephew Harpal Singh were going for watering their fields. When they reached near the electric motor and the light of the electric bulb which was on they saw two persons inside the shed where the tube-well motor was installed. The complainant and his nephew Harpal Singh rushed towards the tube-well motor shed and two persons came out and one of them had succeeded in running away. The other person was apprehended. The lock of the motor was broken. Keys of the engine were missing and had been stolen and taken by the person who had fled away from the spot. The person, who was apprehended, disclosed his name as Fauji (petitioner No.1). The complainant and Harpal Singh were going to the police station to lodge their report but on the way the police party Cr. Rev. No.1162 of 2009 [3] headed by ASI Attar Singh met them and their statement was recorded. A memo was sent by ASI Attar Singh through PHG Sulakhan Singh to the police station for registration of FIR. Attar Singh, ASI along with other police officials went to the spot and a rough site plan was prepared. The broken lock and other items were taken in possession. Fauji (petitioner No.1) was arrested. Petitioner No.2- Kaptan Singh was arrested later. On the disclosure statement made by him the Police recovered the stolen keys (tools) which were taken in possession in pursuance of a recovery memo. After completion of the investigation, the charge-report (challan) was filed. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib after considering the evidence and material on record convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 380 and 457 IPC. Both the petitioners were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 days for the offence under Section 380 IPC. Besides, for the offence under Section 457 IPC, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment it was ordered shall run concurrently. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib while maintaining the conviction has reduced the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 380 IPC from one year to six months and the for the offence under Section 457 IPC from two years to one year. The fine that has been imposed and the period to be undergone in default of payment of Cr. Rev. No.1162 of 2009 [4] fine has been kept intact. The sentences it was ordered shall run concurrently. The petitioners are boys of young age. As per the affidavits filed by Shri Jatinder Pal Singh, Superintendent, Maximum Security Jail, Nabha, the petitioner No.1-Fauji has undergone imprisonment of one month and 18 days upto 11.5.2009 and petitioner No.2-Kaptan has undergone imprisonment of one month and 17 days upto 11.5.2009. The value of the articles which they had stolen it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners is about Rs.3,000/-. As per the affidavits filed there is no other case in which the petitioners may be involved. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances it would be just and expedient if the petitioners are granted the concession of their release on probation. This would enable them to reform themselves, besides to keep a check on them of keeping peace and being of good behaviour during the period of probation. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended and it is ordered that the petitioners shall be released on probation for a period of one year on their furnishing personal bonds each in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and they shall during the said period of one year maintain peace and be of good behaviour and shall appear and serve the sentence as and when called to do so. Besides, they shall file an undertaking that they shall not commit any offence during the probation period. The fine that has been imposed shall be treated as costs of the proceedings. The probation bonds shall be furnished and the costs of proceedings, if not already deposited, shall be deposited within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. Cr. Rev. No.1162 of 2009 [5] The criminal revision petition is accordingly disposed of. May 26, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*