IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.457 of 2005 Date of Decision 03.03.2010 Kashmir Singh ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 24.11.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ferozepur, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 03.05.2001, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 445 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 380 IPC. However, in appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 445 IPC was converted into an offence under Section 457 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 09.08.1999 at about 12:00/1:00 midnight, the petitioner while trespassing into the house of complainant, stole the four lady suits and currency notes of Rs.1450/-. Case was registered against him and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He was charged, tried, and ultimately convicted and sentenced Criminal Revision No.457 of 2005 -2- accordingly. His appeal also failed. Heard. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid. As such, these findings do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Heard. It is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999. The petitioner has already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings pending in the different Courts. He was found stealing four lady suits and a sum of Rs.1450/- only. However, he was fired by the complainant, as a result of which he suffered injury on his thigh. Custody certificate, produced on the record, reveals that the petitioner has already undergone about 8 months and 11 days of the substantive sentence and has deposited the fine. Under these circumstances, with a hope that he may not indulge in such activities and join the mainstream and earn his livelihood out of hard earned labour, I do not deem it appropriate to send him to imprisonment again. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 03.03.2010 mamta-II