Crl.R.No.2238 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.2238 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 16, 2010 Meeto alias Moto .....Petitioner v. The State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Narinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which appeal filed by the present revision petitioner against judgment dated 9.8.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, in FIR No.12, dated 15.1.2003, under Sections 379/356 IPC, registered at Police Station Mulepur, vide which petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 379/356 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, was modified to the extent that applicant-revision petitioner was acquitted for offence under Section 356 and however, appeal against his conviction for offence under Section 379 IPC was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that Harbans Singh, complainant alongwith his wife Jaspal Kaur had gone to Gurudwara Sahib at Fatehgarh Sahib to pay obeisance. When they got down the bus at the bus stand, Fatehgarh Sahib, at about 2.30 p.m., the petitioner-accused Crl.R.No.2238 of 2010 (O&M) -2- snatched the chain of Smt.Jaspal Kaur, wife of complainant, weighing 20/22 grams. Petitioner-accused was caught at the spot and the golden chain of wife of complainant was recovered. Applicant-petitioner faced trial before learned Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. She was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 379 and 356 IPC, as aforementioned and however, on appeal, her conviction and sentence for offence under Section 379 IPC only was maintained. Learned counsel for the applicant-revision petitioner has not challenged the judgment of conviction passed by learned appellate Court. However, it has been contended that applicant-revision petitioner is a lady and that she has already undergone three months of sentence, she is not a previous convict and that she has been facing trial since the year 2003 and hence it is contended that lenient view in the matter of sentence be taken. These facts have not been disputed by learned State counsel. Applicant-petitioner is a lady. She is not a previous convict. She has already undergone more than three months of sentence. She is having minor children to look after. Hence taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the view that she deserves leniency in the quantum of sentence. Ends of justice would be met if sentence of applicant-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by her during investigation and trial of this case. Hence, present revision petition is partly accepted and while maintaining the judgment of conviction passed by learned appellate Court against applicant-petitioner for offence under Section 379 IPC, sentence is modified to the extent that she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by her during investigation, trial and during pendency of appeal and revision. Disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, for compliance. 16.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.R.No.2238 of 2010 (O&M) -3-