Crl.Misc.No.6221 of 2007 in Crl.Revision No.175 of 2007 (O&M) **** Present:- Ms.Anjali Kukar, Advocate for Mr.Tarun Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Sra, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that in deference to order dated February 01, 2007, the matter has been compromised with the respondent-complainant. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1- complainant does not dispute the above-stated stand taken on behalf of the petitioner. He, further, states that the respondent-complainant has already received the entire payment. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is not present and has gone to hospital to attend some urgent call. Adjourned to 24.4.2007. Meanwhile, the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar vide his judgment and order dated 5.4.2004 which has been further upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar vide his judgment dated 17.1.2007, is ordered to be suspended and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. Copy of the order be given Dasti on payment of usual charges. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE Crl.W.P.No.154 of 2007 **** Present:- Mr.Mahabir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the scant material on record, I am satisfied that no opinion with regard to the illegal detention/confinement of the persons mentioned in para 2 of the petition at the hands of respondents No.3 and 4, can be made out in these proceedings. Under Sections 10 to 12 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the District Magistrate concerned has got ample statutory powers not only to prohibit the practice of forced labour system, he is also obligated to promote the welfare of the freed bonded labourers by securing their economic interests. If so advised, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, who is directed to act promptly in accordance with law and take all necessary actions which may be required. Disposed of. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE Crl.Misc.No.952-M of 2007 **** Present:- Mr.Sarabjit Hira, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** As requested by learned counsel for respondent No.2, adjourned to 12.3.2007. Meanwhile, reply, if any, be filed. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE Crl.Misc.No.32864-M of 2006 **** Present:- Mr.Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kultar Singh Bhangru, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. As requested by learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 24.4.2007 for arguments. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.27313-M of 2006 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Yash Pal & anr. ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate vs. State of Punjab & anr. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab. Ms.Ruchi Sebhri, Advocate for No.2. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. The prayer in this petition is for quashing of F.I.R.No.48 dated 27.4.2005 under Sections 406/120-B IPC registered at Police Station City, Gurdaspur as well as all the proceedings arising therefrom. Though the respondents have filed a written statement contesting the aforesaid claim, however, Mr.Baath, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from ASI Samma Singh, informs that during the pendency of this petition, a cancellation report has been prepared which has been duly approved by the Sr.Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur and the same is likely to be presented very soon before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, since the petitioners have got the desired relief, no further direction is required to be issued at this stage. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to submit the cancellation report, referred to above, within two weeks from today before the learned trial Court. As an abundant precaution, liberty is granted to the petitioners to get this petition revived, if so required. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.20827-M of 2006 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Mandeep Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Vishal Sharma, Advocate vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent(s) through Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. In this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 15.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Ludhiana whereby he has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial in case F.I.R.No.21 dated 29.2.2000 registered under Sections 323/324/364/511/148/149 Cr.P.C. at Police Station, Division No.2, Ludhiana. There is no denial to the fact that along with the petitioner one Shashi Sharma was also summoned to face trial in the above-stated case vide the said impugned order. The said Shashi Sharma had filed Crl.Misc.No.19828-M of 2005 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated September 22, 2005 (Annexure P-2) whereby the operation of the summoning order qua Shashi Sharma was stayed and the trial proceedings in the F.I.R. in question qua him were directed to be kept in abeyance till the Sessions trial case pursuant to F.I.R.No.20 dated 9.2.2004 under Sections 302/34/120-B IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station, Haibowal District Ludhiana, is decided. Crl.Misc. No.20827-M of 2006 -2- For the reasons already given in Shashi Sharma's case (supra), this petition is disposed of with a direction that the order dated April 15, 2004 whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial as well as the trial proceedings arising out of F.I.R.No.21 dated 29.2.2000 registered under Sections 323/324/364/511/148/149 Cr.P.C. at Police Station, Division No.2, Ludhiana shall also remain in abeyance till the sessions trial in F.I.R.No.20 dated 9.2.2004 under Sections 302/34/120-B IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station, Haibowal District Ludhiana is decided. Thereafter, it will be open for the complainant (Raman Rana) and/or the petitioner, as the case may be, to move an application to get the present proceedings revived after the conclusion of the trial in the above- mentioned murder case. It is also directed that the personal appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court shall remain exempted till the proceedings are got revived, if so advised. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Appeal No.2228-SB of 2006 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 State of Punjab ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab. vs. Gursharan Mohan ....Respondent(s) through None. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. The respondent has been found guilty of taking illegal gratification of Rs.500/- and consequently, he has been convicted under Section 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge, Roopnagar thereafter considered the issue of quantum of sentence. Having regard to the fact that the respondent is a first offender and keeping in view his age, character and antecedents etc., the learned Special Judge deemed it appropriate to sentence the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal inter alia contending that the respondent has not been suitably sentenced. It is true that in order to curb the menace of corruption in public life, effective and remedial measures are required to be taken and a harsh punishment should be given to guilty of committing such an offence, however, once the learned trial Court, on a consideration of the relevant Crl.Appeal No.2228-SB of 2006 -2- material, has formed a conscious view in relation to the quantum of sentence, it does not warrant any interference by the appellate court unless it is highly disproportionate and/or a mere eye wash. The case in hand does not fall within any of such parameters. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE Crl.Rev.No.2222 of 2006 **** Present:- Mr.H.S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. **** After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I am satisfied that no case for interference by this Court is made out. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the pleas, as raised in this petition, before the learned trial Court at an appropriate stage and the same shall be gone into in accordance with law. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P. No.1037 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Ruldu Ram ....Petitioner(s) through By post. vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent(s) through Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. Reply filed on behalf of the respondents in Court is taken on record. As per the averments made in the reply, a notice dated 7.11.2006 under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued to Varinder Kumar @ Pinna son of Kushdev Chand in case F.I.R.No.125 dated 29.7.2005 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Rampura. It is further averred that the said Varinder Kumar refused to accept the notice, however, he later on appeared in the Police Station, Rampura before the SHO and after being questioned in the said case, he was let off. The allegation of illegal detention of said Varinder Kumar is specifically denied. In this view of the matter, no further action is called for. Disposed of. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.54386-M of 2006 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Bikramjit Singh & anr. ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate vs. State of Punjab & ors. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Chanchal K.Singla, Advocate for C.B.I. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have come up for issuance of a direction to the respondents to register a cross- case against the opposite party and thereafter to hand over investigation of case F.I.R.116 dated 12.6.2006 under Sections 302, 307, 34 IPC read with Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Lopoke, Police District Majitha, to some independent agency. It may be stated here that petitioner No.1 is facing trial in the above-stated F.I.R. for committing the alleged murder of one Makhan Singh. Petitioner No.2 is his mother. The gravamen of the allegations is that it was the opposite party which forcibly entered on the land of the petitioners and attacked them. To substantiate the said plea, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon an enquiry report dated 5.7.2006 purported to have been submitted by the Crime Branch of the Punjab Police, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-7 with the Rejoinder. Crl.Misc. No.54386-M of 2006 -2- On the other hand, the stand of the respondents/investigating agency is that much before the enquiry conducted by the Crime Branch, pursuant to which the report Annexure P-7 is stated to have been submitted, the case was investigated by the local police and a chargesheet was presented, whereafter charges have been framed against petitioner No.1. It is also the case of the learned State counsel that before conducting enquiry/investigation, the Crime Branch did not obtain any permission from the learned trial Court nor the Court issued any direction for further investigation in terms of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and going through the report Annexure P-7 which is being relied upon by the petitioners, I am of the considered view that the entire matter has to be left to the discretion of the learned trial Court. While the petitioners shall be at liberty to rely upon the report of the Crime Branch (Annexure P-7) at an appropriate stage, it is for the learned trial Court to test the veracity thereof and thereafter to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Needless to say that if the learned trial Court finds the said report trustworthy, an appropriate direction to take action against those who, according to the petitioners, were the aggressors, shall automatically follow. With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev. No.1235 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Brij Bhushan & ors. ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.T.P.S.Tung, Advocate vs. State of Punjab & anr. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30.1.2006 vide which charges under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18 and 21 of the Punjab Apartment and Properties Regulation Act, 1995 have been framed against the petitioners. Two-fold contentions have been raised. Firstly, it is argued that petitioner No.1 is in Government service, therefore, prior sanction of the Competent Authority was sine qua non for his prosecution. Secondly, the land purchased by the petitioners allegedly falls within the urban area, therefore, the provisions of the above-noticed Act are not attracted. So far as the first contention is concerned, admittedly the sale transaction whereby the petitioners have purchased the piece of land has nothing to do with the performance of official duties by petitioner No.1. No sanction, therefore, was required to prosecute him. As far as the second plea is concerned, the petitioners are entitled to raise the same at an appropriate stage before the learned trial Court and needless to say, the same shall be gone into in accordance with law. Crl.Rev. No.1235 of 2006 -2- It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is required to form a prima facie opinion only and it is not required to pass a detailed order which may directly or indirectly tinker with merits of the case. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty as noticed above. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE Crl.Misc. No.7633-M of 2007 **** Present:- Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. **** Mr.R.D.Sharma, learned DAG, Haryana has placed on record the written instructions from the Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon vide memo No.2081 dated 19.2.2007. As per the contents of the aforesaid letter, the husband of the petitioner has already undergone total sentence of 19 years, 10 months and 11 days. It is also stated that vide letter No.1465 dated 8.2.2007 the case of the husband of the petitioner for his release has already been submitted to the State Level Committee for its approval. In view of the above-stated stand taken by the respondents, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Level Committee to hold its meeting as early as possible but not later than four weeks from today and take an appropriate decision on the recommendations already received by it in respect of release of the petitioner's husband. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.1147-M of 2007 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Jagjeevan Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mrs.B.P.K.Brar, Advocate vs. State of Punjab & ors. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to release him on parole for four weeks under Section 4 (1) (d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. It is averred that an application for the aforesaid release was submitted by the petitioner to the Jail Authorities on 27.11.2006 which was duly recommended by the Gram Panchayat of the village also. However, no final decision has been taken so far. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner's claim, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Additional Director General of Police, Punjab (Jails) to take a decision in accordance with law on the application which is stated to have been made by the petitioner for his release on parole, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.1144-M of 2007 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Jeet Singh @ Jeeta ....Petitioner(s) through Mrs.B.P.K.Brar, Advocate vs. State of Punjab & anr. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. The petitioner, who is a convict under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act and is undergoing sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, has been denied parole on the ground that there is an apprehension of breach of peace and he can also become proclaimed offender. In order to dislodge the above-stated reason, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that no other such like case has ever been registered or is pending against the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner has a family in the village consisting of small children and he has got landed properties too. Reliance has also been placed upon the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat in support of the petitioner's release on parole. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner's case requires reconsideration by the Authorities. If the petitioner is not a habitual offender and his conduct and behaviour while in jail is also good, there appears to be no reason not to Crl.Misc. No.1144-M of 2007 -2- release him on parole. That apar, various remedial measures can be taken by the Authorities to ensure that concession of parole cannot be misused. Besides furnishing heavy personal bonds, the petitioner can be asked to produce two sureties in the like amount, who should be office bearers of the Gram Panchayat and/or other respectables of the village. The petitioner can also be asked to report to the Police Station concerned intermittently during the period of parole. Consequently and for the reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 5.9.2006 (Annexure P2/T) is quashed and a direction is issued to the Additional Director General of Police (Jails), Punjab, to reconsider the petitioner's case to release him on parole. Necessary decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE Crl.Misc.No.1051-M of 2007 **** Present:- Mr.P.P.S.Tung, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab. **** As requested by Mr.Baath, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, adjourned to 3.4.2007. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE Crl.Misc.No.979-M of 2007 **** Present:- Mr.P.P.S.Tung, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab. **** Reply filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. To come up for arguments on 15.3.2007. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.71886-M of 2006 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Jai Pal ....Petitioner(s) through Mrs.Sarla Chaudhary, Advocate vs. State of Haryana & anr. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. The petitioner, who has been taken into custody only 21.2.2006 and is a life convict under Section 302/34 IPC, has been denied parole for house repairs on the ground that there is an apprehension of breach of peace in the village and his house in village Narsinghpur can be got repaired by other family members. Similar stand has been taken in the written statement also. Since the petitioner has surrendered very recently, it is difficult to believe that in such a short span, the condition of his house has become so dilapidated that it requires urgent repairs. Consequently, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. However, if in future the petitioner's house requires any genuine repairs, he may move another application along with supporting material and the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. Disposed of. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.69012-M of 2006 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Rajesh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.H.L.Bhatia, Advocate vs. State of Haryana & ors. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. The petitioner, who is a life convict, has been denied parole for house repairs on the ground that as per the report of the District Magistrate, Banka (Bihar), his case for parole has not been recommended and as such it is not possible to release him. In the written statement, the respondents have come up with the plea that the report has been obtained and it has been found that the petitioner's house is in good condition and it does not require any repairs. So far as the reason assigned in the impugned order is concerned, the same is quite vague and evasive, therefore, it cannot sustain. No reason appears to have been assigned by the District Magistrate as to why the petitioner's case was not recommended. However, the reason assigned in the written statement which is based upon the police report (Annexure R-1) it is apparent that the petitioner's house does not require any repairs. Obviously, the petitioner has failed to make out a case of “sufficient cause” under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act. Consequently no interference in the impugned order is called for. Crl.Misc. No.69012-M of 2006 -2- However, if in future the petitioner's house requires any genuine repairs, he may move another application along with supporting material and the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. Disposed of. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.68269-M of 2006 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Ved Pal ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. Reply filed on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. The petitioner, who is a life convict has been denied parole for house repairs on the ground that his house is in good condition and does not require any repairs. Similar stand has been taken by the respondent in the written statement filed in Court today. It is apparent from the impugned order as well as the written statement that there exists no “sufficient cause” in terms of Section 3(1)(d) of the Act and, thus, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority. However, if in future the house of the petitioner requires any genuine repairs, liberty is granted to him to move an application along with supporting materia. As and when such an application is moved by the petitioner, the respondent-Authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. Disposed of. February 20, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.68271-M of 2006 Date of Decision:- 20.02.2007 Bhal Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. The petitioner, who is a life convict has been denied parole for house repairs on the ground that his house is in good condition and does not require any repairs. Similar stand has been taken by the respondent in the written statement. It is apparent from the impugned order as well as the written statement