In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 866 of 2002 Date of decision: February 13, 2009 Jagdish Shanker and others ... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 24.4.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-accused against the judgment dated 25.4.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act, 1966. Briefly stated, the facts as culled out from the complaint are that on 30.6.1990 at about 5.00 a.m. when the police party was going to check trains standing at Line No.7, they saw the accused coming from the western side with rickshaw-rehri. Accused Jagdish Shanker was holding its handle and accused Sohan Lal was pushing it. Accused Charan Dass was holding another Rickshaw rehri and accused Ram Sanjiwan was pushing it. Amarjit Singh accused was holding third rickshaw rehri and Hari Kishan accused was pushing it. On suspicion, they were apprehended and on interrogation they disclosed that they had removed pig iron from the open Crl. Revision No. 866 of 2002 -2- box of railway which was stalled just near the site. On weighment, one rehri was found to contain 202 kgs of pig iron, second rehri 212 kgs pig iron and third rehri 255 kgs of pig iron. The stolen goods were taken into possession. The accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, a complaint under Section 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession), Act, 1966 was presented in the Court. On trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by them also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Nothing has been found on the facts to say in favour of the accused. Sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution in order to connect them with the commission of an offence under Section 3 (A) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession), Act, 1966. The evidence has been duly appreciated by the trial court. Learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib also approved the same. The findings of fact returned by both the courts below cannot be gone into unless the judgment is perverse or on misreading of evidence. Under these circumstances, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner stand confirmed. As a last resort, learned counsel for the petitioners has pleaded for taking some lenient view in the matter. Having examined the case qua this aspect, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners had stolen the railway property which they were taking while carrying in their respective rickshaw rehris and the said stolen property was recovered from them. The occurrence took place way back in the year 1990. They have already suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted trial. Admittedly, they are first offenders and as Crl. Revision No. 866 of 2002 -3- such ends of justice would be met if they are released on probation and are burdened with costs of litigation. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed and the sentence is modified to the extent that they are released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib for a period of one year within which period they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they shall be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, they are also ordered to pay Rs.5000/- each on account of costs of litigation within three months failing which this revision petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto. Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate, Amicus Curiae may claim his remuneration as per rules. February 13, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge