IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev. No. 470 of 2001 Date of Decision: January 19, 2009 Ramesh @ Lala and another. .............Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.I.P.Singh, Advocate for Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharath Sarup,AAG Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioners-Ramesh @ Lala and Bijender were convicted and sentenced under Sections 332,353/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonepat vide judgment and order dated 27.7.2000. Petitioners were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 332 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- each for the offence under Sections 353 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide judgment dated 5.3.2001. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 3 of its judgment, is as under:- “ The case was registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint Ex.PW1/A filed by Shri B.Punia, Traffic Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sonepat. It is alleged in the complaint that on 19.05.1995 Shri B.Punia along with the Inspectors of the Crl.Rev. No. 470 of 2001 -2- department was checking the illegal plying of the vehicles on Sonepat-Gohana Road. In the meantime, a matador bearing registration No. DL-ICD-6018 carrying passengers came from Gohana side. When a signal to stop was given the matador was turned towards village Mehlana. In the meantime, a truck came from the opposite side, so the matador was stopped. So many Inspectors stood in front of the matador and asked its driver to show the documents but the driver did not open the window. As per information the driver of the matador was called `Lala' resident of village Joli, district Sonepat. In the meantime so many passengers alighted from the matador. One of the Sub Inspectors Hawa Singh entered the matador. So many people gathered at the spot and truck was also drove away. In that situation the driver of the matador got a chance and ran away with his vehicle. Sub Inspector Hawa Singh remained in the matador. He was given beatings by the conductor and three more persons in the matador. He was having Rs.860/- in his pocket as of fine and some documents which were also taken away by the accused. Ultimately, they forced him down near a Minor (water channel) of village Mehlana and went away. On the basis of that complaint formal FIR Ex.PW6/B was registered against the accused. Later on the accused were arrested. During the investigation it was found that allegation regarding snatching of money from Hawa Singh was not correct. Matador was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/A. The registration certificate (RC) of the matador was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/B. Crl.Rev. No. 470 of 2001 -3- After the completion of necessary investigation report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) was prepared and filed in the court for trial of the accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 332/353/34 IPC but has only challenged the sentence awarded to the petitioners by the Courts below. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners had undergone one month of actual sentence and their sentence of imprisonment be reduced to as already undergone by them. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 19.5.1995. Petitioners are facing the criminal proceedings since then. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,conviction of the petitioners as ordered by the Court's below is maintained. The sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to as already undergone by them. However, the sentence part of fine is enhanced from Rs.200/- for each of the offence to Rs. 2500/- for each of the offence. Petitioners are directed to deposit the fine within one month from today failing which the petition shall stand dismissed. This petition is disposed of accordingly. ( Sabina ) Judge January 19, 2009 arya