Crl.Revn. NO.573 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revn. NO.573 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: 25.02.2010 Jagjit Singh ...PETITIONER VS. State of Punjab ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. MOHINDER PAL, J.(Oral) This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Jagjit Singh against the judgment dated 06.03.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala and the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 10.12.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, convicting the petitioner under Sections 353, 506, 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of Crl.Revn. NO.573 of 2003 2 one month under Section 353 of the Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default whereof to further undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days under Section 186 of the Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 189 of the Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 506 of the Code. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 26.09.1991, complainant-Sawarnjit Singh process-server gave an application to the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala that he had gone to Village, Rureke Khurd for effecting service upon accused-Jagjit Singh, who hurled abuses at him in the name of mother and sister and torn out the summons. The accused armed with a Forra (instrument used for collecting dung) followed the complainant by saying that he used to come often for service of summons upon him. Complainant Sawarnjit Singh further mentioned in the application that had be not fled away from the spot, accused-Jagjit Singh might have inflicted some injuries upon him. The said application was forwarded to the Station House Office, Police Station Tapa by the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala for investigation and registration of the case. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted against the accused in the Court. Crl.Revn. NO.573 of 2003 3 The accused was charged under Sections 353,506,186 and 189 of the Code. He did not plead guilty to the charge-sheet and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined Sawarnjit Singh complainant as PW1, Amrit Pal Singh Nazir as PW2, Harbhagwan Singh Nazir as PW3, Nachhattar Singh as PW4, Sub Inspector Amar Singh as PW5 and Inderjit Singh Walia, learned Additional Sr. Sub Judge as PW6 and closed the evidence of the prosecution. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner Jagjit Singh denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. Basant Singh, father of accused was examined in defence as DW1 and one Gamdoor Singh was also examined by accused as DW2 and defence evidence was closed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. He has no enmity with the accused to falsely implicate him in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any flaw in the prosecution case, which otherwise stands proved on record. In fact, no serious challenge could be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the truthfulness of the prosecution version. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has rightly been convicted in this case. As such, conviction of petitioner Jagjit Singh under Sections 353,186,189 and 506 of the Code, as Crl.Revn. NO.573 of 2003 4 recorded by both the Courts below, is maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of petitioner-accused Jagjit Singh for the last more than eighteen as the case relates to 26.09.1991, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to deposit of fine of Rs.5000/- within a period of two months with the State Legal Authority, Punjab from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I order accordingly. However, if the petitioner fails to deposit the fine within the stipulated period as mentioned above, this revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. Resultantly, by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this revision is disposed of. February 25, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE