Crl. Revision No.2961 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2961 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 17, 2010 Surjeet Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. H.N. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Y.P. Malik, DAG, Haryana. SABINA, J. Petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. The petitioner was convicted under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat vide judgment dated 19.03.2008. Vide order dated 25.3.2008, passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 3 of the Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide judgment dated 27.08.2009. Hence, the present revision. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 2 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- Crl. Revision No.2961 of 2009 2 “ On 28.3.1999, ASI M.P. Singh along with other police officials caught hold a person near the Washing Line electric pole No.1053, on suspicion, who disclosed his name as Surjeet alias Langra son of Jangsher resident of Idgah Colony, Panipat. On search, he was found in his possession one brake block and he did not give any proof of retaining the same and the said brake block was retained by him without any permit or licence. The brake block was taken into custody after sealing the same. The same was got checked by Jatinder Kumar JE-I, C & W Panipat, who after testing the same found to be the Railway Property. On the basis of said complaint, a formal case was registered against the accused. During investigations, statements of witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared. Accused was arrested in the present case and after completion of necessary investigation, challan was put up in the court for trial against accused.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the only bread earner of his family and his one leg has been amputated. Petitioner has already undergone more than seven months of actual sentence out of the total sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 3 of the Railway Property Act and has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Fine has already been deposited by the petitioner. Crl. Revision No.2961 of 2009 3 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner to already undergone by him. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) March 17, 2010 JUDGE Anand