Crl. Rev. No. 2287 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 2287 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.12.2009 Jatinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab ***** 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 is a petition against the judgment and sentence order dated 02.09.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha and also the judgment order dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was sentenced for one year under Section 411 IPC and a fine of Rs.1000/- with further sentence of two months in default of payment of fine vide order dated 02.09.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. The appeal against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2009 passed Crl. Rev. No. 2287 of 2009 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and the conviction as well as quantum of sentence was maintained. While challenging the judgment dated 02.09.2008 of the trial Court as well as the judgment dated 25.08.2009 of the Appellate Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are material contradictions with the number of the vehicle. Further no vehicle was ever recovered from the accused at any time and the prosecution had failed to prove the registration copy of the alleged Motor Cycle. There is no evidence on record to prove that the alleged vehicle was recovered from the accused. It was further stated that the statements made by Ajay Gautam and Arvind Gautam as PW1 and PW2 is not enough to say that the alleged recovered motor cycle is their ownership. Further, no independent witness was joined by the public party. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. While dismissing the appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, recorded the following findings :- “ xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. A perusal of the record has shown that the PW4 HC Jaspal Singh, Police Station West, Chandigarh has proved on record the FIR No.176 dated 13.05.2001 as Ex.PW4/A on the file. The said FIR has been got registered by Arvind Gautam who has appeared as PW2 in this case. Arvind Gautam in his FIR to the police has stated that he had parked his motor cycle No.HR-20-A-0857 of red colour Bajaj Caliber in front of A.C. Joshi Library, Punjab University, Chandigarh at 3 p.m. on 13.05.2001 but at 6 p.m., when he came out of the library, he did not find his motor cycle there. After making his efforts to trace the same, he got the FIR registered. The said FIR Ex. PW4/A clearly mentions that the stolen motor cycle was Bajaj Caliber and was of red colour having Chassis No.DDE BFC-31404 and Engine No.DDM BFC-99578. Crl. Rev. No. 2287 of 2009 3 The motor cycle which recovered from the appellant/accused also bears the same Chassis and Engine No. It is a different matter that the registration number of the motor cycle recovered is HR-06-G-59 and that of the stolen one vide FIR Ex.PW4/A is HP-20-A-0857. It can be well inferred that the person of such nature, who is in possession of stolen motor cycle, must have put a fictitious number plate over his motor cycle, otherwise the appellant/accused has not been able to prove the registration number of the said motor cycle in his name. Meaning thereby, he was not able to satisfy PW3 ASI Shashi Kapoor, investigation officer of this case regarding his ownership of the motor cycle in question. When he has not been able to prove the ownership of the motor cycle, then, inference is to be drawn that the appellant/accused had retained the said motor cycle knowing fully well that the same was a stolen property. PW1 Ajay Gautam has proved his ownership of the said motor cycle. PW2 Arvind Gupta has proved the theft of his motor cycle No.HP-20-A- 0857 Bajaj Caliber make. All this shows that the prosecution has fully proved that the appellant/accused was in possession of the motor cycle No.HP-20-A-0857 which was a stolen property.” In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer to the quantum of sentence. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner however pleaded for grant of probation. The present case is a case of theft. Releasing the petitioner on probation will only encourage the habit of the petitioner in the commission of such like offences. The grant of probation to the petitioner is, accordingly, declined. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a young man and has got a family to support, the sentence already awarded to the petitioner is reduced from rigorous imprisonment of Crl. Rev. No. 2287 of 2009 4 one year under Section 411 IPC to nine months of rigorous imprisonment. However, the amount of fine shall remain same and in default of payment of the same, the petitioner shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months as already held by the Courts below. Disposed of in the above said terms. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 16.12.2009 JUDGE gurpreet