IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1214 of 1999 Date of decision: 6th March, 2009 Ravinder Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by Ravinder Kumar son of Gujjar Mal, resident of Daulat Colony, Ludhiana. He was named as accused in case FIR No. 231 dated 01.11.1989 registered at Police Station Ludhiana under Sections 379, 411, 420, 468 IPC. Amritpal Singh son of Ajit Singh had approached SHO, Govt. Railway Police with an application that his scooter has been stolen from the Railway Station. It was submitted in application that on 7th November, 1989 at 5.00 p.m., after parking the scooter at the Railway Station, he had gone to Delhi and when he came back from Delhi, he found that scooter was missing from cycle stand, Railway Station, Ludhiana. He searched for the scooter, but could not find the same. In the complaint, he had given the chassis number and engine number of the scooter. The scooter was Priya brand, manufactured by Bajaj Auto. Criminal Revision No. 1214 of 1999 After registration of the FIR, bill regarding the purchase of the scooter on 17th July, 1989 was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide separate recovery memo. Token issued by the cycle stand was also taken into possession vide recovery memo prepared by ASI Bhag Singh. On 13th January, 1990, scooter was recovered from Narinder Kumar accused. A registration certificate was found, which was in the name of Ravinder Kumar, present petitioner. Inquiry was made from the office of District and Transport Officer (DTO), Ludhiana, it surfaced that scooter had been purchased by Ravinder Kumar from Shlapur Automobiles, Sholepur. For registration of the case, ration card was also submitted. Later it was found that bill of purchase provided to the DTO, from which ownership of the petitioner was reflected, was forged. Prosecution examined eight witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Relying upon the evidence, trial Court held that recovery of the scooter from Narinder Singh accused is proved. From the evidence it has held that it has been proved that the registration certificate was issued by the District Transport Authorities on the basis of a false sale letter relied upon by the petitioner. An argument was raised before the trial Court that in the present case, no independent witness was examined. The Court held that in the present case, official witnesses aspire confidence. They have been subjected to thorough cross-examination, but defence had failed to gain anything substantial. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, an appeal was filed. Same was also dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has stated that be will not be able to assail the conviction of the petitioner. He has stated that in the present case, occurrence has taken place about 20 years ago. 2 Criminal Revision No. 1214 of 1999 Petitioner has suffered a protracted trial. Scooter of the complainant was stolen. It has been submitted that complainant can be compensated with the cost of scooter. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner was taken into custody on 10th August, 1989 when his appeal was dismissed. Petitioner was granted bail by this Court on October 15, 1999. He has undergone 2 months and 5 days of his actual sentence. It has been submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the registration of the FIR. Petitioner has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 468 and 471 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner was aged 20 years at the time of occurrence and during last 20 years, petitioner has married and has got children, who are solely dependent upon him. Taking into consideration protracted trial, age and antecedents of the petitioner, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Same shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months after the receipt of certified copy of this order. Amount of fine shall be disbursed to the complainant. In case, amount of fine is not deposited within the time specified, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 6, 2009 rps 3