IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.45 of 2008 Date of decision: 4 th March, 2010 Prem Chand … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Prem Chand son of Matu Ram resident of village Gopalwas, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. He was named as accused in case FIR No.128 dated 27.05.2000 registered at Police Station Mohendergarh under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. In the present case, FIR was registered on the statement Ex.PA made by Yadvinder Singh, who was employed as a driver on Marshal Jeep, whose number was applied for by one Zile Singh. The complainant had given engine number and chassis number of the jeep in the FIR and stated that this jeep was purchased on 4 th May, 2000. On 27 th May, 2000, the complainant had gone to Loharu on this jeep with his friend Satnarayan Sharma. On 26 th May, 2000 at 11.30/12.00 O’clock, diesel was got filled in the jeep and the same was parked in the street. At Criminal Revision No. 45 of 2008 about 4.00 p.m., he found that the vehicle was not there. The complainant learnt from his neighbours that the vehicle was parked in the street till 2.00 p.m. According to the complainant, theft of the vehicle was committed by some unknown person. Present petitioner was arrested on 24th June, 2000 and the jeep was recovered from him. The petitioner was charged for offence under Section 411 IPC for having received the stolen article, i.e. the jeep. Prosecution examined four witnesses. ASI Mange Ram appeared as PW-1, SI/SHO Chajju Ram as PW-2, Zile Singh owner of the vehicle as PW-3 and Yadvinder Singh complainant as PW-4. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he will not assail the conviction of the petitioner, but will pray to this Court regarding reduction of the sentence only. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 29 th November, 2004 had sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 411 IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, his conviction was upheld and sentence was maintained. In the present case, theft of the vehicle was committed on 27th May, 2000. The petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial for a period of about ten years. It is stated that the petitioner has not committed any offence before or after registration of the FIR in question. Taking into consideration long pendency of the trial, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced from one year to ten months rigorous imprisonment. 2 Criminal Revision No. 45 of 2008 Petitioner has also filed an application for release of his driving licence on sapurdari. For decision of the application, the record of this case be sent to the trial Court forthwith. The trial Court, on filing of a fresh application by the petitioner, shall decide the same in accordance with provisions of law within one month. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 4, 2010 rps 3