Crl.Revision No.2134 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2134 of 2002 Date of Decision: August 10, 2010 Sher Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 9.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar whereby judgment of conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and the order, dated 11.12.2001, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”) was upheld and the sentence of the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for Crl.Revision No.2134 of 2002 -2- 15 days was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in para 2 of the trial Court judgment, are as under: “Complainant Ravi Kumar made complaint with police to the effect that he is working as Assistant Executive Engineer Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Ropar; and on 21.2.1998, he along with family members had gone to his parents at Manimajra and he locked his quarter and on 23.2.1998 at around 8.00 a.m. when he came back, he found that the front lock of his house was missing and the door was bolted from inside and when complainant saw from the backside of his house, he found that back door of his house was lying opened. On entering the house, complainant found that lock of bed room was broken and the almirah in the bed room was lying opened on search, it was found that golden ornament i.e. two golden sets, two ear rings, one ring, one mangal sutar, two karas, one chain set of gold, one locket, ear rings, three watches (one lady and two gents) and Rs.3000/- were missing. Ons the basis of said complaint, investigation in the present case was initiated. Site plan regarding place of theft was prepared. In course of investigation, present accused was arrested and above mentioned stolen articles were recovered from him. Site plan regarding place of recovery was also prepared. Statements of the witnesses of investigation, challan against the accused was present in the court for his trial.” 3. The accused-petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offence Crl.Revision No.2134 of 2002 -3- punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, viz., SI Amrit Lal, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur as PW1; complainant Ravi Kumar as PW2; ASI Karam Chand as PW3; SI Gurdev Singh, Finger Print Expert, Ropar as PW4 and ASI Jarnail Singh, the Investigating Officer as PW5. 5. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations made against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his false implication. In defence, the accused-appellant examined one Jaspal Singh as DW1. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for a term as noticed in the outset in para 1 of this judgment. 7. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on 21.11.2002 by this Court and the present revision petition was admitted on 18.9.2003. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ram Kalyan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3157 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioner as the offence stands proved. 10. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 23.2.1998. Thus, the petitioner has suffered a protracted Crl.Revision No.2134 of 2002 -4- trial for more than 12 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone sentence for about 1-1/2 months. He has not so far misused the concession of bail. 11. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of more than 11 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kalyan's case (supra) in paras 7 and 8 has observed as under: “Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of conviction passed against the appellant cannot be disturbed and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment should be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone while confirming the order of conviction. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The bail bond, if any given, relating to this case shall stand discharged. The appeal is ordered in the above terms. Order accordingly.” 13. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for more than 11 years, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him, but his conviction stands maintained. Crl.Revision No.2134 of 2002 -5- 14. To assuage the feeling of wrong done by the petitioner, the complainant deserves to be compensated. Accordingly, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court. He shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of fine of Rs.20,000/-, an amount of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State as litigation expenses. 15. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 16. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 9.10.2002 and that of the Trial Court dated 11.12.2001 is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) August 10, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No