Crl.Rev No.2133 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev Nos.2133 & 2134 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.09.2011 Sham Mandal ...Petitioner Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL --- Present: Mr.B.S.Mangat, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.Preet Pal Singh, APP, for U.T., Chandigarh. --- A.N.Jindal, J. CRM No.40895 of 2009 & CRM No.40915 of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the applications both the applications are allowed and the delay in filing the petitions is condoned CRR No.2133 of 2009 This order shall dispose of two Criminal Revision petitions bearing No. 2133 and 2134 of 2009 both titled Sham Crl.Rev No.2133 of 2009 2 Mandal Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions. The petitioner was prosecuted for allegedly committing theft in Shree Krishna temple situated in Sector 44-A, Chandigarh, House No.240 Sector 51, Kothi No.1342 Sector 42, Chandigarh and House No.326 Sector 51-A, Chandigarh. The theft came to light on 11.9.1994, when the accused/petitioner was interrogated by SI Rajdeep Singh. Two separate FIRs were recorded. Both the cases were investigated; the recovery of golden ornaments was effected. The trial resulted into conviction and the petitioner was sentenced vide judgment dated 30.3.2009 by the learned trial court to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, under section 411 IPC each in both cases. The appeals preferred by the petitioner were also dismissed on 27.04.2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh with the modification in the sentence by reducing the same to one year. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner states that the petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence. This fact is not disputed by the learned APP for the State. In any case, having scrutinized the judgments of both the courts below it appears that both the courts have returned consistent findings of fact that recovery of stolen golden ornaments from the petitioner is established against him beyond reasonable Crl.Rev No.2133 of 2009 3 doubt. The accused/petitioner appears to be a habitual offender. He committed theft in many houses as well as temple. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 01.09.2011 Judge rp