In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1874 of 2003 Date of decision: March 05, 2009 Manjit Singh and another r ... Petitioners vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 2.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioners”) against the judgment dated 15.6.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib convicting them and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.50/- each on both counts under Sections 457/380 IPC. The allegations, in brief, are that on 9.2.1998 the complainant Gurmeet Singh (herein referred as 'the complainant') had gone to Ahmadgarh in connection with some domestic work. At about 11.00 p.m. he returned home and saw that the iron rods of window of his house were lying broken. When he opened the lock two persons came out of the room. On search of his luggage he found that the currency notes of Rs.10,000/- lying in theli, in his brief-case which he had withdrawn from Allahabad Bank some days ago, were missing. On his this statement, a case was registered and investigation commenced. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were charged for the offences punishable Crl. Revision No. 1874 of 2003 -2- *** under Sections 457/380 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Satparkash Clerk-cum-Cashier (PW1), Gurmit Singh complainant (PW2), HC Major Singh (PW3), MHC Ashok Kumar (PW4) and ASI Nirmal Singh I.O. (PW5). In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Their appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been urged that since the occurrence took place way back in the year 1998 and the petitioners have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings, some leniency may be extended on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the same is shorn of any illegality or irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Nothing substantial could be found enabling this court to interfere in concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused. As such, conviction recorded against him is maintained. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1998. The sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then. They have already undergone about one month out of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been brought forth in order to enable me dub them as habitual offenders. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the extent that they be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they will be ready to serve Crl. Revision No. 1874 of 2003 -3- *** sentence as and when called for. However, they are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- in equal shares, to the complainant Gurmit Singh within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib for compliance. March 05, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge