Criminal Revision No.75 of 2003 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.75 of 2003 Date of decision: September 21, 2010 Kali Charan .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Devinder Singh Sangwan, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment 12.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Kali Charan (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 5/6.8.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 12 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (herein referred as, 'the Act'). In nutshell, the allegations are that Jai Karan Section Officer in the office of District Town Planner, Sonepat, sent a written complaint dated 12.3.1993 which was received in the police station on 30.3.1993, alleging therein that the accused in the name and style of M/s Balaji Developers and Promoters has carved out a colony in the land falling in Rect. & Killa No.42/2, 3, 8, 9, 56/15, 16 and 25, 57//11(2) 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 situated within revenue estate of village Kundli Tehsil & District Sonepat in violation of the provisions contained in the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered and investigated. On completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court. Criminal Revision No.75 of 2003 -2- *** The accused was charged under Section 12 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined ASI Partap Singh, Retd. (PW1), Jagdish Patwari (PW2), Silak Ram Reader in the office of District Magistrate, Sonepat (PW3, Jai Karan complainant (PW4) and SI Ram Kishan (PW5). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, this court does not require to delve deep into the facts and evidence on the record particularly when both the courts below have reached the conclusion that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 6 punishable under Section 12 of the Act. No irregularity in the conduct of trial much less illegality has been detected in the impugned judgment which may invite interference by this Court. Both the courts below appear to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. As regards quantum of sentence, the occurrence in this case relates back to 30.3.1993, the accused must have suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him for the last 17 years. No such evidence has been placed on record in order to establish that he is habitual offender. As such, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, some leniency on the quantum of sentence could be shown to the accused. Resultantly, while dismissing the revision, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the fine is converted into costs of litigation and he is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- more towards costs of Criminal Revision No.75 of 2003 -3- *** litigation within three months from today. Mr. Davinder Singh Sangwan, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat for compliance. September 21, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge