Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2008 Sandeep ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Sonika Kapadia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No.105 dated 1.4.2001 registered under Sections 379 IPC at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat, on the allegations that stolen motor-cycle was recovered from him. Briefly, the facts are that on 1.4.2001, FIR in question was recorded on the statement of Naresh with the allegations that his Motor- cycle Hero Honda Splender bearing No.HR-06F/ 0716 parked outside the Haryana Iron Foundary was stolen. On the basis of information, accused- petitioner was arrested and motor-cycle in question was recovered from him. Considering the unimpeachable prosecution evidence on record, learned trial Court opined that the charge under Section 411 IPC against the petitioner was proved and, accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and even his request for granting him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1959 (for short, “the Act), was also declined. Though, initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the findings of the Court below whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offences committed under Section 411 IPC, however, finding it difficult in Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2008 (O&M) 2 view of the prosecution evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, he had faced the agony of trial before the Courts below for about seven years and further that his marriage was solemnized in the year 2006 and he has old parents to support and being the sole bread- earner of the family, he should be extended the benefit of the Act. She further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone about 6½ months of actual imprisonment. She has also placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Sudh Ram v. State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 550; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 656; Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 579; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 310; Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 328 and Jai Ram v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 597. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction of the petitioner. However, the facts that he had faced the agony of trial before the Courts below for about seven years and further that his marriage was solemnized in the year 2006 and he has old parents to support and being the sole bread- earner of the family, are sufficient mitigating circumstances to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Keeping in view my above observation, the present petition is disposed of by holding that the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the imprisonment for the remainder sentence, the petitioner shall be released on probation on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. The petitioner is also directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so. However, fine of Rs.2500/- is imposed on the petitioner which shall be deposited with the court below as a condition precedent for his release on probation. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 22.7.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge