Criminal Revision No.1607 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1607 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision:May 13, 2010 Sukhpal Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Munish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 3.10.2002 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Fatehgarh Sahib. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- . Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was partly dismissed with regard to the point of charge of receiving stolen drill (Ex.P1) by the appellant in his possession dishonestly, by Additional Sessions Judge Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment dated 16.7.2005. Hence, the present Criminal Revision No.1607 of 2005 (O&M) 2 revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 9.7.1998, the police party headed by SI Paramjit Singh alongwith other police officials was present at Madhopur Chowk in connection with Nakabandi. That at that time, SI Paramjt Singh received a secret information that a drill which was stolen in the night near workshop by Talwinder Singh and Sukhpal Singh appellant was being transported on motor cycle by them to Patiala for its sale. In the meantime, Gurmeet Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, blacksmith was called thereat, a motor cycle no.PB-12-B-0004 came from the side of Sirhind which was being driven by Talwinder Singh and the person sitting behind it Sukhpal Singh appellant was carrying something weighty on his thighs like bag. They were intercepted by the police party and on search, a drill was recovered bearing inscription GS and Gurmeet Singh was written in english on the motor. Heavy Duty Drill, Drill no. 023- 13, Code 235V, F/L Amps, 255, N/b RMP 560, Ralli Wolf Ltd. Bombay-40080, Made in India was written on it. Gurmeet Singh son of Gurbachan Singh identified it to be his stolen property. The motor cycle no PB-12-B 0004 was taken into police possession as appellant failed to produce any documents for their lawful possession. Ruqa was sent and case was registered. The motor cycle was subsequently then found to be stolen from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala in December, 1997 of Dr.Gagandep Criminal Revision No.1607 of 2005 (O&M) 3 Singh. The investigating officer prepared the rough site plan of the place of recovery. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of investigation of the case, challan was presented against the appellants in the trial court.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the fine has already been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1998 and has undergone 1½ months of actual sentence. He is the only bread earner of his family. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge May 13, 2010 arya