In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2001 of 2005 Date of decision: December 02, 2010 Paramjit Singh alias Pamma .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Criminal Revision No.2032 of 2005 Jagdip Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of two connected revision petitions No.2001 and 2032 of 2005, having arisen out of the judgment dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 16.7.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 411 IPC. The facts as picked up from the Criminal Revision No. 2001 of 2005 are that on 17.12.1996, Inspector Gurmail Singh of CIA Staff, Moga received a secret information that accused Jagdip Singh, Manjinder Singh and Paramjit Singh alias Pamma were committing the incidents of stealing scooters at Moga and Jagraon and now they are coming to Moga on scooter bearing registration No.PCE 3734 to steal scooters. Believing the information to be correct, a ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. He along with other police officials Criminal Revision No. 2001 of 2005 -2- held a picket at the bridge of canal minor. Thereafter, at about 11.00 a.m. from the side of Zira three young men riding on scooter No.PCE 5734 came. Jagdip Singh was driving the scooter whereas, Manjinder Singh and Paramjit Singh alias Pamma were sitting on the pillion seat. They were apprehended and on search of the accused Paramjit Singh alias Pamma a pistol along with live cartridges were recovered, regarding which separate proceedings under Section 25 Arms Act were conducted. During interrogation, Jagdip Singh disclosed about concealment of scooter No.PB- 29-7780, Manjinder Singh disclosed about the concealment of the scooter No.PIM-2116 and Paramjit Singh alias Pamma disclosed about the concealment of the scooter No.PB-29-1252. Their disclosure statements were recorded separately and they in pursuance of their disclosure statements got recovered the stolen scooters, which were taken into possession. Rough site plan of the place of recoveries were prepared. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court. They were charged under Sections 411 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined ASI Harmesh Lal (PW1), Baldev Raj, Motor License Clerk, Office of SDM, Jagraon (PW2), Jasbir Singh Clerk DTO Office Moga (PW3), Sursh Gupta (PW3/A), Dr. Inderbir (PW4), Tirath Ram (PW5), SI Jagjit Singh (PW6), Satnam Singh (PW7), Sushil Kumar (PW8), Lakhwinder Singh (PW9) and Gurpreet Singh (PW10). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their falsel implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. The appeals preferred by the three accused namely Paramjit Singh alias Pamma, Jagdip Singh and Manjinder Singh were dismissed. Now Paramjit Singh alias Pamma and Jagdip Singh have preferred the revision petitions. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners being the first offenders and having already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence, may be dealt with leniently on the quantum of Criminal Revision No. 2001 of 2005 -3- sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the accused were guilty of the offence for which they were charged. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1996; the petitioner have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against them since then; they have already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Resultantly, while dismissing both the petitions, sentence passed against the petitioners is modified which is reduced to five months each without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga for compliance. December 02, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge