-1- Criminal Revision No.681 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.681 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 04, 2010. Karamjit Singh and another ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLR MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advcate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners Karamjit Singh and Bitta were convicted by the trial Court under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for -2- Criminal Revision No.681 of 2003. short `the Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for thirty days. Their appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing in spite of the fact that his presence was requisitioned by the Reader of this Court by displaying his name in the notice board through the Computer installed in the Court. I have heard the learned State counsel and have gone through the records of the case with his assistance. A dacoity had been committed in the house of complainant Amritpal Sharma when he along with his wife and children had gone to his native village. Cash amount of Rs.32,000/- and other articles were stolen from the house of the complainant. On the basis of statement (Exhibit P.A) made by complainant Amritpal Sharma before the police on 11.6.1997, the instant case was registered. The petitioners were detained by the police in connection with investigation of case registered vide F.I.R. No.95 dated 10.4.1998 under Sections 454 and 380 of the Code. A pistol was recovered from petitioner Karamjit Singh. During investigation, Karamjit Singh (petitioner) suffered disclosure statement (Exhibit P.W.2/B) to the effect that he had kept concealed the stolen articles consisting of one pair of `topas', ear rings, a ring, -3- Criminal Revision No.681 of 2003. silver wrapped in a glazed paper etc. in trench of his house. In consequence of the said disclosure statement, appellant Karamjit Singh got recovered these articles. Accused-petitioner Bitta had also got recovered stolen articles of the complainant in consequence of the disclosure statement (Exhibit P.W.2/C) suffered by him (petitioner Bitta). The stolen articles recovered from the accused were taken into possession by the police. The identification of these articles was got done by the police from complainant Amritpal Sharma on 26.5.1998 qua which identification memo was prepared. Amritpal Sharma complainant (P.W.1) and Sub Inspector Amarjit Singh (P.W.2) have fully supported the prosecution version, as detailed above. The case property was produced in Court at the time of recording of prosecution evidence. As mentioned above, complainant Amritpal Sharma had identified the stolen property, recovered from the accused. The petitioners failed to prove as to how they had come into possession of the stolen property. There was no reason for the police to falsely implicate the accused-petitioners in this case. The petitioners are sons of Ujjagar Singh, who appeared in the defence of the petitioners as D.W.1 and stated that the petitioners had been falsely involved in this case. He further stated that the police had registered six cases against petitioner Karamjit Singh and five cases against petitioner Bitta. He further stated that the petitioners had been acquitted in two cases. Had the petitioners been falsely implicated in this case, Ujjagar Singh (D.W.1) would not have failed to approach the higher -4- Criminal Revision No.681 of 2003. police authorities or would have got passed some Resolution from the Pancahyat in this regard. However, no evidence has been led on record to prove any such step having been taken by the father of the petitioners, namely, Ujjagar Singh (D.W.1). The facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, lead to the only conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-petitioners beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt. As such, the petitioners have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below in this case, as mentioned above. No ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction has been made out. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. March 04, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE