Criminal Revision No.2211 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2211 of 2005 Date of Decision 10.12.2010 Hanuman ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Three accused namely Jasbir @ Jassi, Hanuman and Gunpal were prosecuted for stealing a maruti car, bearing registration No.DNA- 5563 and receiving the stolen property. The trial Court vide judgment dated 11.01.2005, while acquitting Gunpal, convicted and sentenced Jasbir @ Jassi to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 379 IPC whereas Hanuman was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 411 IPC. Out of them, only Hanuman preferred the appeal, which was dismissed with certain modification in the sentence by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 23.11.2005. Factual matrix of the case is that M/s Elofic Industries Limited, Faridabad, had handed over the car to Pawan Kumar Sharma, for use. On 25.12.1999, he had come to meet his father in law. On the intervening night of 25/26.12.1999, the said car was stolen from the house of his father-in- Criminal Revision No.2211 of 2005 2 law. He got registered a case FIR No.231 dated 26.12.1999, under Sections 379, 411 IPC. Ultimately accused Jasbir got recovered the car from the custody of Hanuman in pursuance of his statement Ex.PW1/A under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Hence the accused were challaned. On trial, they were convicted and sentenced accordingly. Arguments heard. Record perused. Mr.Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court as well as Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, were heard at length. It has been duly proved on the record that car was stolen property. In this regard, Pawan Kumar (PW4) lodged the FIR on 26.12.1999. It is also established on the record that the said stolen car bearing registration No.DNA-5563 was registered in the name of M/s Elofic Industries Limited, Faridabad and vide authority letter Ex.PW4/B Pawan Kumar Sharma (PW4) was authorized to use the aforesaid car. The disclosure statement Ex.PW1/A pursuant to which the recovery of the car was effected from Hanuman, has also been duly established. The only plea, set up by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Hanuman, being layman, had purchased the car for Rs.18,000/- from Jasbir, therefore, he could not be convicted. In this regard, it is observed that this plea cannot be available to Hanuman as the car was not in the name of Jasbir, therefore, in the absence of any title of Jasbir over the car, the petitioner could not purchase the same. Before purchasing the car, it was the duty of the petitioner to examine the title. Even otherwise, no such affidavit or agreement has been placed on the record by the petitioner in order to show that he was bonafide purchaser of the car. Criminal Revision No.2211 of 2005 3 While taking the case from another angle, both the Courts below have returned the findings of fact that the petitioner had received the stolen property, therefore, these findings cannot be disturbed except on the grounds of perversity, material illegality or manifest error apparent on the record in the impugned judgment but no such illegality much less perversity in the same has been indicated. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999; the petitioner has suffered much on account of the protracted proceedings and he has lost Rs.18,000/- which he had paid for the car, therefore, some leniency may be shown on the quantum of sentence. Having heard the rival contentions, no doubt there is some longevity of trial but the same may be due to the period undergone in the process of trial as well as in the appeal. Anyway, the fact that the accused had already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence and has also faced agony of trial for the last eleven years, therefore, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent. In the wake of aforesaid discussions, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to nine months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, for compliance. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the competent authority as per rule. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 10.12.2010 mamta-II