IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 539 of 2006. Date of Decision: 17.2.2011. Rakesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision arises out of the following facts: On October 8th, 1999 Rattan Lal, Assistant Sub- Inspector along with other Police officials was present in the area of Railway Station, Jagadhri. When he reached near Chandpur, Banti Kumar co-accused of the petitioner was noticed carrying a plastic bag on his shoulder. On suspicion, he was apprehended. Search of the bag was made. It contained 12 pendrol clips which were Railway property. He was arrested. During interrogation, he made disclosure statement (Exhibit PW-3/A) to the effect that prior thereto, he sold a few pendrol clips to Rakesh Kumar-petitioner who is running a shop of scrap at Jagadhri. In pursuance thereto, he led the Police party to the house of the petitioner and got recovered 19 pendrol clips. 2. The petitioner was charged under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Trial Magistrate by judgment dated January 13th, 2004 convicted him under the aforesaid Section and vide order dated January 14th, 2004 sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. 3. Aggrieved of the said judgment, petitioner filed appeal before Sessions Judge, Ambala but the same was dismissed by judgment dated February 23rd, 2006. Criminal Revision No. 539 of 2006 (2) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that prosecution failed to prove that pendrol clips, allegedly recovered from the petitioner, were property of the Railway. In support of the same, he relied upon the statement of Amrik Singh (PW-1) who is a Government employee and the so-called Expert, Kamrudin Constable (PW-2) and Rattan Lal Investigator (PW-3). Amrik Singh deposed that property produced in the Court viz pendrol clips did not bear any mark of Railways. In the same vein are the statements of Kamrudin (PW-2) and Rattan Lal (PW-3). It was urged that at least the benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner. 5. Against it, learned State counsel has referred to the report (Exhibit PA) wherein it was reported by Amrik Singh that pendrol clips were property of the Railway and the petitioner had no right to retain it. 6. It was also urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the value of pendrol clips was Rs.50/- only, a fact which has not been refuted. The petitioner remained in custody for quite sufficient time. He was not challaned prior to the registration of the present case or thereafter. He is the only bread winner of his family. 7. Taking into consideration the accusation against the petitioner and the fact that he was a scrap dealer and the price of the pendrol clips was Rs.50/-, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. 8. In view of above, conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine shall remain intact. 9. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. 17.2.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE