CRR No.97 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.97 of 2002 Date of decision:30.07.2010 Mani Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Sandeep Khungar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, (for short `Appellate Court'), whereby judgment/order dated 13.5.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (for short `Trial Court') was upheld and the conviction under Section 408 IPC and the sentence of the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days, for the offence under Section 408 of IPC, was affirmed. 2. In nut-shell, the facts, as narrated in para 2 of the learned CRR No.97 of 2002 2 Appellate Court judgment, are as under: “Babu Ram Complainant reported to S.I. Mall Singh to the effect that he is resident of Jain Nagri and is having a shop of Commission Agent under the name and style of M/s Daulat Ram Hans Raj. They have employed Mani Ram sonof Jot Ram r/o Kala Tiba being accountant (Munim) at the shop of commission agent and they used to give cheques to said munim for drawing the amount from bank. On i.e. 22.7.93, he gave cheque bearing number 375460 for Rs.55000/- to accused Mani Ram for drawing the amount from Oriental Bank of Commerce Abohar and at that time his brother Raj Parkash was also sitting with him at the shop. It was around 12 PM when their munim Mani Ram came and told that he was returning after withdrawing the amount from bank by carrying that in the raxian bag. When he reached near street No.11-12 at Circular Road, two motor cycle borne persons came there out of them one was a sikh youngman and the other was a bare headed youngman and he snatched the bag containing money and thereafter fled away with bag. The motor cycle was not having any registration number at the backside. The bag was having a chit of his name. After recording the said statement, a ruqa was sent to the police station for recording F.I.R., investigation was initiated at the spot. CRR No.97 of 2002 3 During the course of investigation Mani Ram accused made a disclosure statement with the police to the effect that he has given Rs.55,000/- i.e. ten bundles in the denomination of Rs.50/- notes and ten bundles in the denomination of Rs.5/- notes to his brother Tarlok Chand by putting them in a raxian bag and which could get recovered at his instance. After recording the said statement, S.I. Mall Singh alongwith Raj Parkash and Mani Ram reached at Village Kala Tibba where Tarlok Chand tried to fled away after seeing the police party but was apprehended and during the course of investigation he made a disclosure statement with the police to the effect that he had concealed the currency notes of Rs.55,000/- i.e. 10 bundles in the denomination of Rs.50/- and 10 bundles in the denomination of Rs.5/- in a raxian bag and wrapping them in a piece of cloth in the fodder room and which can be recovered at his instance. After recording the said statement accused Tarlok Chand got recovered the said currency notes from the specified place and a slip bearing M/s Daulat Ram Hans Raj Commission Agent Mandi No.2 Abohar, Babu Ram Tinna was also recovered from the raxian bag, which were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in CRR No.97 of 2002 4 the court.” 3. The accused,namely, Mani Ram and Tarlok Chand were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 408/381/411/420 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses,namely, Satish Kumar Sharma, Head Cashier of Oriental Bank of Commerce as PW1; Babu Ram (complainant) as PW2; Head Constable Baljit Singh as PW3; ASI Hardial Singh as PW4 and S.I. Mall Singh as PW5. 5. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. In defence, the accused examined Hardwari Lal as DW1 and Hans Raj as DW2. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed in para No.1 of this judgment. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, the petitioner Mani Ram has preferred this revision petition. 8. The present revision petition was admitted on 28.1.2002 by this Court. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. He has CRR No.97 of 2002 5 prayed for grant of probation on the grounds that the petitioner has already undergone sentence for a period of 6 months and 23 days; no previous antecedents have been brought to surface so as to condemn him as habitual offender; he is the only bread earner of the family; he has grown up children coupled with the fact that he has faced the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 17 years. Reference has been made to judgments of this Court in Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR (Crl.) 563 and Niranjan and another v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) RCR (Crl.) 620, wherein in similar circumstances, the accused/petitioner was released on probation. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the case of prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In the instant case, the petitioner has got no previous criminal history and he has already undergone sentence for more than 6 months coupled with the fact that the petitioner has suffered protracted trial for the last more than 17 years. In my opinion, it is a fit case, in which the sentence awarded to him, should be set aside, and he be released on probation of good conduct. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. However, the order of sentence is set aside, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct, on furnishing a personal bond, in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, CRR No.97 of 2002 6 Ferozepur, for a period of three years, to appear and receive sentence, as and when called upon to do so, during this period, and in the meantime, to keep the peace, and be of good behaviour, and also furnish an undertaking not to commit, such an offence, during the said period. The petitioner shall furnish the probation bonds and pay the costs of litigation to the tune of RS.10,000/- a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, by the concerned Court. 13. In case of failure of the petitioner to furnish the probation bonds, and deposit the costs of proceedings, with the period stipulated, shall entitle the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, to comply with the judgment, in accordance with law, with due promptitude. 30.07.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No