Criminal Revision No.367 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 367 of 2007 Date of Decision: May 19, 2009 Inderjit Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Ms.Kamalpreet, Advocate for Amicus Curaie Mr.Sidharath Sarup,Assistant Advocate General,Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) in FIR No.257 dated 26.6.2002 registered at Police Station Ambala City by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ambala City on 12.7.2005 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The appeal filed against the conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala on 8.7.2006. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below:- “Prosecution case is that on 26.6.2002 Deepak Kumar (PW1) made his statement Ex.PA to the police alleging that he runs a goldsmith shop at Gall Jattan, Tasveeran Wala Chowk, Ambala Criminal Revision No.367 of 2007 2 City on the ground floor and that he lives with hi family on the first floor. On the night intervening 25/26.6.2002 at about 12.30 A.M. he heard a noise of opening of the shutter of his shop. Immediately, the complainant came out and saw that a young boy ran away after committing theft in the shop. The complainant checked his shop and found that one chhatter silver, one pair of Jhumki silver (gold plated), one pair of Pajeb (silver), one set of Mangal sutra, one pair of ear ring silver (gold plated), two calculators and bank pass books had been stolen. The complainant further stated that both the hands of the said young boy had the marks of burn and that he could identify him. 3. On the aforesaid complaint, the present FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested on the same day and the stolen articles were recovered from his possession which were taken in police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC and the same were identified by the complainant. On completion of necessary formalities of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted to stand trial for the offence aforesaid.” Complainant-Deepak Kumar while appearing in the witness box has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. He also identified the stolen articles of the case property and stated that the same belongs to him. The stolen property was recovered from the petitioner and were taken in possession vide recovery memo Exhibit PC. Complainant identified the ornaments belonging to him recovered from the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner was arrested at 4.00 a.m.,whereas, Criminal Revision No.367 of 2007 3 theft was committed at about 12.30 p.m. The complainant had no enmity against the petitioner to involve him falsely in this case. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 411 IPC and the appellate Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as ordered by the trial Court. Now, the petitioner has already undergone the sentence qua imprisonment. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge May 19, 2009 arya