Crl. Revision No. 63 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 63 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 25, 2009 Gurjit Singh and others ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.D.D.Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab *** SABINA, J. Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') vide judgment dated 24.5.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala. Vide order of even date passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, petitioners was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 411 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 7.1.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. Crl. Revision No. 63 of 2009 -2- Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, is as under:- “2. The prosecution version was that on 24.4.2001 one Darshan Singh son of Ascharaj Singh resident of House No. 220, Harinder Nagar, Patiala moved a complaint in writing to the Incharge Police Post, Division No. 4, Police Station, Kotwali, Patiala stating that on 23.4.2001 at about 9 p.m. he along with his son Gurmit Singh went to Gurdwara Shri Angad Dev, Sirhindi Gate, Patiala to pay obeisance. He had parked his Vespa scooter bearing No. PB-11-E-2402 outside the Gurdwara, before going inside the Gurudwara and when they came out of the Gurudwara, they found their scooter missing, which was stolen by some unknown person. On the basis of the complaint, formal FIR was registered at police station, Kotwali, Patiala and the investigation of the case was entrusted to HC Walati Ram who visited the spot and prepared site plan of the theft. During his investigation, he interrogated suspected persons. 3. On 12.1.2001 ASI Dharam Dev along with other police officials were present at Bari Nadi Bridge, Sanaur Road, Patiala, in connection with patrolling. During checking three person was seen riding LML Vespa scooter. However, on seeing the police party, they tried to flee from the spot. Thereafter, they were apprehended by ASI Dharam Dev. Accused Pritpal Singh was driving the said scooter, whereas accused Gurjit Singh and Kamalpreet Singh were pillion riders. Crl. Revision No. 63 of 2009 -3- They could not show any document regarding their ownership of the scooter, ad as such, scooter bearing registration No. PB- 11-C 2402 was taken into police possession vide recovery memo and the accused were arrested by ASI Dharam Dev on the spot, after disclosing them the grounds their arrest. Personal search of the accused was also conducted. Site plan of the place of recovery was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented in the court.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have already undergone two months of actual sentence. Petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Section 411 IPC and has prayed that the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to already undergone by them. Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioners. A perusal of the same reveals that the actual period of sentence undergone by the petitioners is 02 months and 11 days as on 16.3.2009. Petitioners are not shown to be involved in any other criminal case in the said custody certificate. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners under Section 411 IPC is maintained. However, sentence Crl. Revision No. 63 of 2009 -4- of imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE March 25, 2009 PARAMJIT