IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.748 of 1997 Date of decision: 15th January, 2010 Harkrishanpal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Harkrishanpal Singh was tried in case FIR No.46 dated 08.12.1994 registered at Police Station Bholath under Section 186, 506 IPC and section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. The trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for seven days for offence under Section 186 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 506 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, accused had filed an appeal. The appeal was also disposed of by the lower appellate Court. The conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner under Section 186 and 506 IPC was set aside and the sentence Criminal Revision No.748 of 1997 awarded to the petitioner under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act was maintained. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was released from jail on 16th July, 1997 giving benefit of Government remission, therefore, petitioner has undergone his entire sentence. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the present case, occurrence pertains to 12th November, 1994. The case of the prosecution is that Balraj Singh JE accompanied by officials of the Punjab State Electricity Board was patrolling in the area of village Jogindernagar, when it was found that accused petitioner was committing theft of electricity by putting a direct private wire from LT fuse Unit of the transformer. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he will not contest the conviction of the petitioner. He has further stated that since the petitioner has already undergone entire sentence, he can be given an opportunity to reform himself, so that one stray incident of his life should not mar his career. Learned counsel has further submitted that in case sentence of the petitioner is maintained, the consequences of the same will deprive the petitioner from various opportunities to prove himself as a good citizen. It is submitted that one chance be granted to the petitioner to rehabilitate himself. Learned counsel has relied upon ‘Bajjan Lal v. State of Haryana’ 1998 (4) RCR (Criminal) 520 to say that in a similar case of theft of electricity, the accused was granted probation. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that petitioner has been released from jail giving him benefit of Government remission and that the occurrence is more than 15 years old, I am of the view that conduct of the petitioner can be watched so that he is able to mend his way. Thus, petitioner is released on probation for a period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Needless to say, under Section 12-A of the Probation of 2 Criminal Revision No.748 of 1997 Offenders Act, conviction shall not entail the petitioner with any disqualification. The petitioner shall be called upon by the trial Court to furnish bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that during the period of probation, petitioner shall maintain good conduct, behaviour and peace. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 15, 2010 rps 3