Crl. Rev. No.2822 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.2822 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.12.2009 Bhajan Lal and anr. ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Jindal, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. While issuing notice of motion for 14.12.2009, the following order was passed on 03.11.2009 by this Court :- “ Heard. File perused. There is concurrent finding of guilt of both the petitioners by the Courts below. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal. In fact petitioner No.1 himself sold the disputed land to the complainant and subsequently the petitioners cut and removed wheat crop standing in the said land which has been sown by the complainant. Petitioner No.2 is none else, but son of petitioner No.1. It is thus manifest that conviction of the petitioners is well-founded and is accordingly affirmed.” Crl. Rev. No.2822 of 2009 2 Thus, the only question that requires to be determined is with respect to the quantum of sentence. The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three days. While arguing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a very small quantity of wheat was recovered from them. According to him, the theft was of wheat crops from the fields of the complainant. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are poor persons and, therefore, they should be released on probation. It is a case of theft. Probation will only encourage the habit in the commission of such offence. Hence, the prayer for grant of probation is declined. It is not disputed that the quantity of wheat was not much. They are first time offenders and facing trial since 01.12.2006. Taking a lenient view, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to six months. In view of the above, the conviction of the petitioners is upheld. However, the sentence awarded to the petitioners under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced from one year to six months. The amount of fine shall remain same. The Order dated 13.03.2009/23.03.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Punhana and upheld in the appeal is, accordingly, modified in the above terms. Disposed of accordingly. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 22.12.2009 JUDGE gurpreet