Crl. Revision No. 958 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 958 of 2005 Date of Decision: May 12, 2010 Jagjit Singh alias Jaggy ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda vide judgment dated 5.7.2003. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 411 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 25.1.2005. Hence, the present revision petition. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the trial Court in para 1 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- “ The story of prosecution is that on 10.9.2001 the Crl. Revision No. 958 of 2005 2 investigating officer namely Balwant Singh, SHO, P.S. Sadar Bathinda alongwith ASI Balwinder Singh and other police officials on Government vehicle driven by constable Charanjit Singh in connection with patrolling was present at bus stand Karamgarh Sattran. The investigating officer received secret information against the accused that he commits theft of vehicles and sells them further and could be apprehended in possessing of stolen jeep for which he was wandering in the area of village Chugne Kalan, Sardargarh. The information being reliable ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of a case under Section 411 of IPC and accordingly the present case FIR No.98 of 2001 was registered. ” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411of IPC, but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. Fine has already been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 2001 and he is the only bread earner of his family. As per the custody certificate, placed on record by the learned State Counsel, petitioner has undergone 5 months and 9 days of actual sentence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner to already undergone by him. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 of Crl. Revision No. 958 of 2005 3 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) May 12, 2010 JUDGE Anand