IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1418 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: July 05, 2011 Parminder Singh @ Mintu .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Magistrate for commission of offence under Section 411 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and to pay fine of ` 500/- (in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days); and under Section 420 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of ` 500/- (in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days), vide judgment dated 29.9.2010. 2. The petitioner carried an appeal. The Appellate Crl. Revision No.1418 of 2011 [2] Court vide impugned judgment dated 6.6.2011, has acquitted the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC. Conviction for committing offence under Section 411 IPC and sentence therefor, has been maintained. 3. The petitioner was apprehended on 11.4.2006 while driving Honda Splendor Motor-cycle displaying registration No.PB-02-AD-7280. He was checked by PW-1, Amarjit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector in view of secret information having been received earlier. Proof of ownership was demanded. It came to light that motor-cycle had been stolen. The registration number of the motor vehicle infact was PB-02-AD-1280. The motor-cycle was taken in custody. Ashok Kumar, complainant, produced a copy of the complaint and identified his motor-cycle. The record from DTO’s office was checked. It has been found and established that petitioner had been using the motor-cycle after changing its registration number. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any material evidence that has not been considered. Learned counsel further has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any piece of evidence that has been perversely read. Learned counsel, however, has addressed an argument vehemently to the effect that sentence is on the higher side and the same be diluted. Crl. Revision No.1418 of 2011 [3] 5. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 6. The vice of committing theft of motor vehicles is increasing by the day. Lenient view, under the circumstances, cannot be taken. No ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. 7. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 05, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?