Crl. Revn. No. 1330 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 1330 of 1999 Date of Decision : November 17, 2009 Jaswant Rai and others .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Jaswant Rai, Daniel, Ashok Kumar and Om Dutt Pathak have filed this revision petition challenging their conviction and sentence by the courts below. The petitioners were tried for offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC). On 27.01.1993, on inspection of plant of Swaraj Tractors Division, Mohali of Punjab Tractors Limited, it was found that locks of some drawers containing keys were broken and duplicate keys had been removed. On inspection, it was found that 1476 number of inserts valuing Rs.1,00,000/- were missing. FIR for the same was lodged by Captain H. S. Manasahia, Senior Security Officer of the Company. During investigation, on 08.02.1993, petitioners Jaswant Rai and Daniel were arrested. They made disclosure statements and got recovered Crl. Revn. No. 1330 of 1999 2 150 and 250 stolen inserts respectively. Ashok Kumar and Om Dutt Pathak were arrested on 04.03.1993. They also made disclosure statements and got recovered 75 and 25 stolen inserts respectively. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, vide judgment and order dated 20.03.1995, convicted all the four petitioners under Section 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Appeal preferred by the convicts stands dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment dated 17.07.1999. Feeling aggrieved, the convicts have preferred this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. At the outset, it has to be noticed that learned counsel for the parties state that all the four petitioners have already undergone their entire sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that petitioner Ashok Kumar has since died. Accordingly, as prayed for, instant revision petition qua Ashok Kumar is dismissed as having abated. To prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. R. K. Dhuria (PW-1) was Assistant Manager in the Company. He proved various documents and also stated about theft of the inserts. Complainant Captain H. S. Manasahia appeared as PW-3 and stated about theft of property and lodging of FIR by him. ASI Satnam Singh (PW-2), Captain H. S. Manasahia (PW-3) and SI Didar Singh (PW-4) stated about disclosure statements made by all the four accused and about recovery of the inserts made at their instance, as per prosecution version mentioned herein above. The petitioners in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. Accused Ashok Kumar and Daniel pleaded false implication on Crl. Revn. No. 1330 of 1999 3 account of union activity. The petitioners also led evidence in defence. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that all the petitioners were working in B-shift of the Company i.e. from 02:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and on 25.01.1993 at the end of the shift, stocks were checked and found complete and it was holiday on 26.01.1993 on account of Republic Day and the theft was detected on 27.01.1993 in the morning. It was also contended that there are metal detectors on the gate of the factory and therefore, inserts weighing 4-5 kilograms each could not have been removed by the petitioners from the factory. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted to acquit the petitioners because the charge against the petitioners is not of theft of the property, but is of keeping in possession stolen property knowing the same to be stolen one. The aforesaid contention would, at best, show that the petitioners could not have committed the theft of the aforesaid property. However, it does not go against the prosecution version regarding charge under Section 411 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that there was no identification mark on the stolen property allegedly recovered from the petitioners and such inserts are available in the market and in fact, the complainant Company also purchased the same. However, the petitioners have not claimed the recovered stolen property to be their own, nor the petitioners had any occasion to keep the property with them. They were employees of the complainant company. The petitioners would not have purchased the inserts from open market for their own use because the inserts were meant to be used in manufacturing of tractors. Moreover, the very fact that the petitioners had concealed the stolen inserts, would show that the same was stolen property and the petitioners had knowledge that it was stolen property. The said property was also identified by the complainant during trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that R. K. Dhuria (PW-1) stated in cross-examination that some ancillary work of the Crl. Revn. No. 1330 of 1999 4 factory also used to be got done outside the factory. It was accordingly contended that that inserts could have been pilfered while the work on them was being got done from outside the factory. The contention cannot be accepted because R. K. Dhuria (PW-1) did not state that the work on the inserts used to be got done from outside the factory. Some other ancillary work might be got done from outside the factory. In any event, the inserts were found missing from inside the factory and the same had been removed with the help of duplicate keys taken out by breaking the drawers. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that out of 1476 inserts, which were missing, only 500 inserts were recovered. However, the petitioners have been held guilty only for the inserts, which were recovered from the petitioners respectively and not for the inserts, which were not recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Chander vs. State of Haryana reported as 1973 C. L. R. Vol.-I 357. However, it was on the basis of evidence in that case that the petitioner in that case was acquitted. The same has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is no reason why the witnesses would implicate the petitioners falsely. Petitioners Jaswant Rai and Om Dutt Pathak did not even raise the plea of false implication on account of union activity. Moreover, it has come in defence evidence that no office bearer of the union was ever implicated in any case and even the petitioners Daniel and Ashok Kumar, who have taken the plea of false implication on account of union activity, were not office bearers of the union. In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality in the finding of conviction of the petitioners. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners is Crl. Revn. No. 1330 of 1999 5 upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners be released on probation, although they have already undergone the entire sentence. It was pointed out that the petitioners were not previous convicts. They were also removed from service on account of conviction in the instant case, although their writ petition for reinstatement in service is pending. It was also pointed out that the occurrence took place more than 16 years ago. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel. I have carefully considered the matter. The occurrence took place more than 16 years ago. The petitioners are not reported to be previous convicts. They have already lost their jobs on account of their conviction in the instant case. The petitioners have also already undergone the entire sentence of imprisonment. Prayer for release on probation has been made so that the petitioners may get some other private job. Keeping in view all the circumstances, the prayer is allowed. The petitioners (except petitioner Ashok Kumar, since deceased) are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on furnishing probation bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety each undertaking to keep peace and to be of good behaviour during the period of two years and in the meantime, to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so. The fine amount imposed by the trial court is converted into cost of proceedings. With modification in sentence as aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. November 17, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE