Criminal Revision No.560 of 2006 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.560 of 2006 Date of Decision: 28.03.2011. Bharat Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. G.N.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated February 23rd, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Bathinda, whereby, he partly accepted the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated July 5th, 2005 of by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioners under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and convicted them under Section 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- with default stipulation. 2. On June 27th, 2000, Jarnail Singh (PW-1), Field Officer, Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (for short 'Markfed'), Raman Branch, Bhatinda reported to the Police that 28 bags of wheat, that is, 14 quintal, were found stolen from the Open Plinths of Gurmeet Singh, Raman, Talwandi Sabo road. Amar Nath (PW-3), Assistant Sub Inspector-Investigator recorded the statement (Exhibit PA) of Jarnail Singh. First Information Report (Exhibit PA/2) was recorded. On July 8th, 2000, on Criminal Revision No.560 of 2006 2 .. receipt of secret information, the accused were found carrying the wheat on Camel driven cart in the area of village Kanakwal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the prosecution failed to prove that petitioners dishonestly retained the wheat knowing to believe the same to be stolen. In fact, the petitioners were working as Labourers with the contractor of Markfed and had some dispute over payment and to take revenge, have been falsely implicated. However, he has urged that the petitioners do not challenge the conviction and pray for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by them. The occurrence took place in the year 2000 and thus, the petitioners have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 11 years. The petitioners are neither previous convicts nor have they indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case. They are the only bread winners of their families. 4. The aforesaid circumstances justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by them. However, the amount of fine shall remain intact. 5. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 28.03.2011 som