Crl. Rev. No.2044 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.2044 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.11.2010 Jagmohan @ Happy ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Crl. Rev. No.1858 of 2010 Sukhjinder Singh alias Sukhvinder Singh Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Rajiv Sharma, 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 order shall dispose of Crl. Rev. No.2044 of 2010 and Crl. Rev. No.1858 of 2010. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Rev. No.2044 of 2010. Vide order dated 08.03.2010, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad convicted the accused-petitioners of the charge under Section Crl. Rev. No.2044 of 2010 2 411 read with Section 34 IPC and taking a lenient view against them, however, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each under Section 411 IPC and in case of default in making the payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Thereafter, an appeal was filed. The said appeal was dismissed. However, the sentence was modified and the period of imprisonment of both the petitioners was reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and the sentence regarding the fine was ordered to remain as it is. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.10.2007, complainant Suresh Kumar Rana resident of 745, Raja Garden Old Faridabad moved an application before the police to the effect that on 28.10.2007 at about 8.45 p.m., he went to Railway Station, Faridabad to see off his cousin brother and he parked his Alto car bearing registration No.HR51W 4689 having silver colour, near the auto stand and went along with his brother to Railway Station and after five minutes, when he came back then he fund his car was missing. On the basis of the complaint, the case was registered. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner Jagmohan @ Happy is that no car was recovered from the petitioner and only documents were recovered. He himself went to the Police Station to deliver the said documents. After hearing the petitioner and going through the judgment, as well as, the record, as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the said argument. The co-accused Sukhjinder in Crl. Rev. No.1858 of 2010 had made a disclosure statement. The vehicle was recovered in pursuance to the statement made by Sukhjinder. The Crl. Rev. No.2044 of 2010 3 recovery was effected on 11.11.2007 near the house of Sukhjinder. Jagmohan did not explain as to how he came into possession of the documents of the stolen car when he surrendered and produced the documents. Thus, the argument that he himself appeared and submitted the documents, will not help the accused Jagmohan. Section 114 of the Evidence Act is rightly revoked as the car was recovered in pursuance to the statement made by Sukhjinder. The documents submitted by Jagmohan, pertaining to the same car, which was stolen and for which a disclosure statement was made, leading to the said recovery. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner should be released on probation. Similar prayer was made before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which was declined by holding in para 16 as under :- “ 16. No doubt that there is nothing on record to suggest that any of the appellants- accused is previous convict but at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the incidents of auto theft are increasing in society at alarming speed. In case benefit of probation is given to the appellants-accused, it will send a very wrong signal to the society. The potential offenders are likely to think that they will be let off quite lightly. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellants- accused do not deserve to be given benefit of probation. However, at the same time, I am of the view that sentence of imprisonment for a period of two years is on quite higher side. I reduce the said sentence to imprisonment for a period of one year. Fine has already been paid.” It is, therefore, apparent that lenient view has already been taken by reducing the period of sentence. I find no ground to interfere in the order refusing to grant probation. Crl. Rev. No.2044 of 2010 4 However, taking into account the fact that the petitioners are not the habitual offenders and have a family to maintain, the sentence as awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad now stand reduced to eight months. The revision petition is dismissed except with the modification in the sentence as awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad which now stand reduced to eight months. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 02.11.2010 JUDGE gurpreet