IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2753 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 26, 2009 Pawan Kumar and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. S.D. Anand, J Crl. Misc. No. 54098 of 2009 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Revision No.2753 of 2009 The petitioners were convicted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, (in case FIR No. 51 dated 15.02.2004) for offences under Sections 332 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The finding was based upon the testimony on oath of the witnesses including Sh. N.K. Gaur, who was, at the relevant point of time, posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar. The upheld allegation was that the petitioners, who were in the employment of Judicial Courts and were posted at Court Complex concerned as Chowkidar and Peon respectively, had stolen the indicated Crl. Revision No.2753 of 2009 judicial record and they abused and caused hurt to the official party which tried to capture them while they were under influence of liquor. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, found that the prejudice had been caused to the petitioners as no opportunity of hearing, on point of sentence, had been afforded to them. It also noticed that no charge under Section 379 IPC had, in fact, been framed against them and they had been convicted without there being a charge thereunder. The case was remanded to the learned Trial Court for doing the needful. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is not in a position to argue that there is any factually inaccuracy in the finding of fact recorded by the learned Court of Sessions. That being so, the remand of the case cannot be taken exception to. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by the order granted by the Sessions court. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has not been able to persuade me to record that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by the impugned order of the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Dismissed. October 26, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) 2 Crl. Revision No.2753 of 2009 vkd Judge 3