Criminal Rev No.101 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Rev No.101 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 03.03.2011 Varinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. I.P.S. Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) This criminal revision is against the judgement dated 7.1.2011 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali, whereby the judgment of the learned trial Court has been modified and the conviction order sentencing the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for two years has been reduced to one year. On 25.07.2005, the complainant, Sukhdeep Singh, S.S. Grade-I, Office of Director, State Transport Department, Punjab Chandigarh made a complaint to the Police that he along with Inspector Rajiv Dutta was conducting the checking of Bus bearing registration No.PB-32-E-9854 belonging to Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr Depot. At the time of checking, one of the passengers had claimed to be the employee of Transport Department of the State of Punjab and he had produced identity Card in the name of Harpreet Singh S/o Ajit Singh, Motor Mechanic (A.P.P.). At further verification, it was found that he was Varinder Singh S/o Piara Singh R/o Pathiala, District Ropar. He Criminal Rev No.101 of 2011 (O&M) -2- had prepared a fake Identity Card and he was causing pecuniary loss to the State by travelling on the Bus by making use of said Card. The accused gave a note on the way admitting his mistake. On the basis the said complaint, FIR No.179 dated 25.7.2005 under Section 170, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was registered against the accused. During the trial, vide Judgment dated 17.4.2010, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 170 IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 10 days. Under Section 419 IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 10 days. Under Section 420 IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. Under Section 465 IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in Criminal Rev No.101 of 2011 (O&M) -3- default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. Under Section 467 IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. Under Section 468 IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. Under Section 471 IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. However, on appeal, this sentence was reduced to one year. The Appellate Court had acquitted him of charge under Section 467. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations as alleged in the FIR by leading proper evidence. The ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not attracted in the present case and the conviction under Section 420 is unsustainable. The petitioner is of 30 years of age and is not a previous convict. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a sympathetic view be Criminal Rev No.101 of 2011 (O&M) -4- taken and the petitioner be released on bail by way of grant of probation or by way of reduction in the sentence awarded to the petitioner. Counsel for the State has produced on record custody certificate of the petitioner, who has undergone one month and 21 days. After going through the judgments of the learned trial Court and the learned lower appellate Court, I am of the considered view that both the judgments are liable to be upheld as they do not suffer from any impropriety or illegality. However, keeping the age of the petitioner in mind and the fact that he is not been an earlier convict, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be released on probation. The petitioner has undergone one month and twenty one days of actual sentence and he is a first offender. The above circumstances are sufficient to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed to the extent that the petitioner's conviction under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC is upheld and the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the remaining part of sentence the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on executing probation bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali. The petitioner is however, directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for one year. March 03, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) Jyoti 1 JUDGE