Criminal Revision No. 1137 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1137 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.5.2009 Parveen Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, petitioner was tried in case FIR No. 947 dated 25.7.2004 registered at Police Station Nathana, under Sections 292 & 293 IPC and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda. Trial Court came to conclusion that petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 292 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal. The Sessions Judge, Bathinda, in appeal, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from one year to Criminal Revision No. 1137 of 2009 2 six months. Briefly stated that on 25.7.2004, Rajinder Kumar, Sub Inspector, along with his companion police officials, was on patrol duty at Bus Stand, Bhucho Mandi, when he got secret information that petitioner sell blue films and pirated VCDs at high rate. Accordingly, believing the information to be reliable, police party proceeded to conduct a raid and held a naka at the crossing of village Burj Kahan Singh Wala. Petitioner was seen coming on a motorcycle and a bag was hanging around his neck. Petitioner was apprehended. Pirated VCDs were recovered along with three VCDs which were marked as “X”. These CDs allegedly contained obscene material. Trial Court had formulated the following question for consideration:- “Whether on 25.7.2004 in the area of village Bhucho Mandi, accused was found in possession of 3 obscene VCDs and exhibiting hiring the same to public under the age of 20 years and committed offence U/s 292/293 IPC”. The trial Court, after examining all the evidence, came to conclusion that offence under Section 292 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The Appellate Court also considered various arguments raised and affirmed the findings of the lower Court. Two Courts below have returned the findings of fact. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has opted not to assail the conviction of petitioner. He has submitted that he is conscious that this Court cannot tread on the path of re- Criminal Revision No. 1137 of 2009 3 appreciation and re-appraisal of evidence. However, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Bharat Bhushan v. State of Punjab 1999(2) Recent Criminal Reports 148 to say that mitigating circumstances noticed in Bharat Bhushan's case (supra) are applicable to the petitioner and his sentence should also be reduced adequately. Counsel has further urged that in Bharat Bhushan's case (supra) sentence was reduced from six months to one & half month. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a first convict and he has not committed any offence after the registration of this case, he may be released on probation or his sentence be reduced to already undergone. I am of the view that in the present case benefit as stated in Bharat Bhushan's case (supra) cannot be extended to the petitioner and sentence cannot be reduced to one & a half months. However, I am of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced from six months to four months rigorous imprisonment. With these modifications, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 19, 2009 “DK”