Crl.Revision No.3232 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.3232 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.5.2011 Lal Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. Crl.Misc.No. 63734 of 2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel. Learned State counsel argued that formal reply to the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision is not to be filed. In view of aforesaid statement of learned State counsel, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the revision is condoned. Application is allowed. Crl.Revision No. 3232 of 2010 Admit. Lal Singh filed this revision to challenge the judgment dated 11.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in FIR No.21 dated 9.1.1994 under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (for short, `the Act'), PS Mamdot. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.2.2007 passed by CJM, Ferozepur, was Crl.Revision No.3232 of 2010 (O&M) 2 dismissed. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.2.2007, petitioner was convicted under Section 3 of the Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 9.1.1994, police party headed by ASI Jagir Singh while on patrol duty was present near Village Jallo Ke, then received secret information that Lal Singh @ Bhagat son of Dilawar Singh, resident of Village Fallian Wale Jhugge Dakhli Ruhela Haji, use to cross the border and communicate the official secrets of Indian Military to the Pakistan Military. In case, there is a raid, then he could be apprehended. Taking the information to be credible, ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. As per secret information, raid was conducted. Petitioner was found present at his residence. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Lal Singh and on search of the petitioner, he was found carrying a bag and from that bag, Rs.25,068/- was recovered. On personal search of the petitioner, two papers were recovered. One one paper, words “16 Sikh Armed Fazilka, 222 Symbol Sun 235 Symbol of Sparrow, 220 Symbol Arrow” were written and on the second paper, something in Urgu was written. Both the papers were made into a sealed parcel sealed with seal bearing impression `JS'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Petitioner was charged under Section 3 of the Act. Prosecution examined number of witnesses. Crl.Revision No.3232 of 2010 (O&M) 3 After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. Against the judgment of trial Court, appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have gone through the file. After arguing for some when learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, then stated that out of two years, petitioner has already undergone more than one year. Petitioner is a poor man and is the first offender. Requested to take lenient view. Learned State counsel argued that as per secret information, raid was conducted. Secret documents were recovered from the petitioner. After documents were scrutinized by the Army Intelligence, information contained in the recovered papers was found to be helpful to the enemy. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the impugned judgment and only requested to take lenient view but even then, I want to scrutinize the file as to whether story is genuine one or not. Police party headed by ASI Jagir Singh received secret information and as per secret information, raid was conducted. ASI Jagir Singh appeared as PW4. PW1 Constable Harnam Singh and PW2 ASI Bhajan Singh were also with the party. They have stated that petitioner was apprehended while present in his house and on his search, one bag containing currency notes of Rs.25,068/- was recovered. Two papers were Crl.Revision No.3232 of 2010 (O&M) 4 also recovered. On one paper, words “16 Sikh Armed Fazilka, 222 Symbol Sun 235 Symbol of Sparrow, 220 Symbol Arrow” were written and on the second paper, something in Urdu was written. Papers are M-1 and M-2. PW5 A.K.Marwaha, Under Secretary, Government of India, stated that permission was given to prosecute the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act. Ex.PX is the permission. PW6 DSP Raghbir Singh Chahal, stated that letter (Ex.PW6/A) was sent to the Intelligence Wing of the Army and reply to the letter was that papers recovered were objectionable documents. Revisional Court is not to reassess or reevaluate the evidence on the file. In case evidence on file was misread or judgment is perverse and prejudice was caused to the petitioner, only then Revisional Court is to interfere. Keeping in view the statements of witnesses and documents, I am of the opinion that no reason to differ with the finding of the first Appellate Court and the same is upheld. Admittedly, petitioner is 52 years' old. He is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. He is facing trial w.e.f. 9.1.1994. Out of two years, he has already undergone one year and sixteen days. Petitioner would become hard criminal if again sent to jail. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. Petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (one year and sixteen days). For the reasons recorded above, petition without merit is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence. 2.5.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE