IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.478 of 2003 Date of decision: 10th February, 2010 Ashwani Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Narinder Singh Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Ashwani Kumar son of Chunni Lal. He was named as accused in case FIR No.13 dated 14.02.1996 registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur under Section 381 IPC. FIR, in the present case, was registered on the statement made by Vaishno Sarup PW-1. Statement of Vaishno Sarup was recorded by ASI Satinder Singh PW-7 on 14th February, 1996 at about 5.30 p.m. Complainant Vaishno Sarup PW-1 had made a grievance that accused was employed by him as a driver on Maruti car bearing registration No.PB- 35 5072. On 11th February, 1996, driver had parked the car in the garage. At about 11.30 in the morning, complainant directed the driver to take the car to the fuel station and get the same filled with petrol. Petitioner took away the car and never returned. Efforts were made by the complainant to Criminal Revision No.478 of 2003 search for the accused petitioner but they proved futile. On 22nd February, 1996 accused petitioner was arrested and on disclosure made by him, the car was recovered. Thereafter, on 24th February, 1996, the accused got recovered registration certificate of the car, which was concealed by him. Mr. Narinder Singh Lucky, appearing for the petitioner, has stated that the trial Court has sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 381 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. It is further submitted that petitioner filed an appeal. In appeal, conviction was upheld, however, sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to 1 ½ years rigorous imprisonment. Counsel has prayed that he will not assail the conviction of the petitioner, as Vaishno Sarup PW-1 had no animus against the petitioner. It was a relationship of employer and employee, which had turned sour due to the conduct of the petitioner. However, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, occurrence pertains to February, 1996. Petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for about 14 years. Counsel has submitted that taking into consideration the pendency of the case for long time and protracted trial as mitigating circumstance, sentence awarded upon the petitioner may be adequately reduced. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner by the lower appellate Court is reduced from 1 ½ years rigorous imprisonment to eight months rigorous imprisonment. 2 Criminal Revision No.478 of 2003 With the modifications in sentence noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 10, 2010 rps 3