Crl. Rev. No.2866 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.2866 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.11.2010 Pawan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 25/28.01.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Faridabad, wherein, the petitioner was convicted under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, in a complaint filed by Additional Wild Life Inspector, Sultanpur under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- each under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed vide judgment dated 07.10.2010 passed by the Crl. Rev. No.2866 of 2010 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The facts, in short, are that on 25.01.2007 in the evening at about 6.45 p.m., Bharat Lal along with Kanwar Pal SIWL were on patrol duty in the area of lake in Sultanpur National Park. It is further version of the prosecution that they heard a sound of cutting of tree. When they reached near the spot, Pawan son of Popi was seen running from the spot and after three days i.e 28.01.2007, they went to the house of Pawan and recovered five kikkar trees lying outside of the house in an open place. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the recovery in this case is not supported by any independent witness and no public witness was joined. Heard. There is a confession of the accused himself before PW-3 Shahid Khan who is the Inspector, Wild Life, Sultanpur. The recovery too has been effected by PW-3. PW-1 Bharat Lal, Wild Life Guard and PW-2 Kanwar Pal, Wild Life Sub Inspector have specifically stated that they saw the petitioner running from the spot. The absence of an independent witness is not fatal in the facts of the present case. No reason has been pointed out as to why the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 should not be believed. There is no enmity with the present petitioner. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision petition and the order dated 25/28.01.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Faridabad, wherein, the petitioner was convicted under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act is upheld. However, taking into account that the petitioner is facing the protracted trial for the last four years, he has a large family having old aged ailing parents, two school going children and he is the only bread earner for them, there is no reason as to why he should not be released on probation. Moreover, the petitioner has already undergone sentence of one month out Crl. Rev. No.2866 of 2010 3 of the total sentence of six months. He is still in judicial custody. In view of the above, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation subject to the condition as imposed by the trial Court. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 02.11.2010 JUDGE gurpreet