Crl. Revision No. 717 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 717 of 2005 Date of Decision: September 21, 2010 Pritam Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. SABINA, J. The petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 451/379 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar vide judgment dated 3.9.2004. Vide order of the even date, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 451 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 379 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 24.3.2005. Hence, the present revision petition. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the trial Court in Crl. Revision No. 717 of 2005 2 para 3 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- “ Brief facts of the case are as such that the complainant alleged that she is the resident of Ludhiana. She owns agriculture land bearing Khasra No.5/28, 5/25/2, 27/12/5/3, 6/30, 5/29, 12/26 etc. total 9 kanals at village Mulachak, Tehsil and District, Amritsar and she is in possession of the land since long time. She is an old lady living with her husband at Ludhiana. Taking benefit of her absence, the accused Pritam Singh alongwith sons Tarsem Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Gurnam Singh and Satnam Singh, all residents of Himmatpura, Opp. Dana Mandi, Near Bhagtanwala Gate, Amritsar in the month of May, 195 came to the land of the complainant illegally and without any right and authority took earth from the land of the complainant by excavating the land by 4 ½ feet. When as soon as she came to know of the said fact committed by the accused, she approached to SHO P.S. Sultanwind. Then the enquiry was marked to SI Daljit Singh in which the accused persons admitted their commission of offence and thereafter on the advise of Police Officers, the said accused persons agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- for the loss to the petitioner but the accused persons later on did not fulfill their commitment. Thereafter he again sent complaint dated 28.10.1995 to I.G. Punjab, S.S.P., Amritsar and SHO Police Station Sultanwind against Crl. Revision No. 717 of 2005 3 the accused but no action was taken. Thereafter she filed the writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court and then as per the orders of Hon'ble High court, a case was registered against the accused. The accused were arrested. The Investigating Officer completed the other relevant investigation. After completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was presented in the Court.” None has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. On the last date also none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners. I have gone through the record of the case with the able assistance of the learned State Counsel. The allegations against the petitioners are that they had committed theft of earth by trespassing into the land of the complainant. Both the Courts' below after appreciating the evidence led on record have come to the conclusion that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The facts on record indicated that the petitioners had committed criminal trespass and had further committed theft of earth. The reasons given by both the Courts' below while ordering the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 451/379 IPC are sound reasons and call for no interference. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1998 and the fact that they have already undergone about two months of actual sentence, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners to already undergone by them. The custody certificates of the petitioners have been placed on record by the learned State counsel. Crl. Revision No. 717 of 2005 4 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 451/379 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) September 21, 2010 JUDGE Anand