IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2285 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 21, 2011 Sandeep Kumar & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners were prosecuted for offences under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC. The prosecution followed on the basis of recovery of gold ornaments from the petitioners. The trial Court convicted the petitioners for all the offences, i.e., under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC. The Appellate Court, however, acquitted the petitioners of offences under Sections 380 and 457 IPC, but maintained the conviction for an offence under Section 411 IPC. Counsel submits that the independent witnesses to the recovery of ornaments have resiled. However, they could not deny their signatures. To explain this, the witnesses stated that their signatures were obtained on some blank papers by the police. I do not find this explanation to be valid one. The police would not have any reason to falsely implicate the petitioners, if the recovery was not effected from them. The witnesses apparently were won over and that is why they resiled from the statements, they being witnesses to Criminal Revision No.2285 of 2011 (O&M) :2: the recovery. The Appellate Court has rightly acquitted the petitioners, though in a way presumption was there against the petitioners under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that the property, which was recovered from the petitioners, was either stolen or was received as a stolen property. No case for interference, therefore, is made out on merits. At this stage, counsel says that some leniency in the sentence imposed may be considered. I find that the Court has been very fair and just to impose sentence of six months RI, which would not call for any interference. Dismissed. October 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE