IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2369 of 2009 Date of decision : November 04, 2009 Pritam Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition by convict Pritam Singh assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below. According to the prosecution version, theft of gold ornaments and also a pair of silver pajeb was committed in the house of the complainant on the night between 23/24.9.2001 besides cash amount of Rs 3000/-. FIR was registered on 10.10.2001. During investigation, one Jit Singh made statement on 19.1.2003 under section 161 Cr.P.C. naming Pritam Singh and Lal Babu alias Babu Ram. Petitioner Pritam Singh was arrested in another case. On 3.3.2003 after obtaining production warrant, the petitioner was arrested in the instant case. The petitioner on 4.3.2003 after making disclosure statement got recovered a gold ring weighing 6.40 grams and pair of silver pajeb weighing 47 grams. Lal Babu was also arrested but no stolen property of this case was recovered from him. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda vide judgment and order dated 5.11.2008 convicted the petitioner under section 411 IPC Criminal Revision No. 2369 of 2009 -2- and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs 500/-. Appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Bathinda vide judgment dated 18.7.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the convict. Notice of motion re: quantum of sentence only has been issued in the revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged recovery was effected on 4.3.2003 i.e. more than six years ago and the value of the stolen property as of today would be around Rs 10,000/- only and must have been less at the time of recovery. Accordingly, prayer is made for reduction in sentence. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Keeping in view all the circumstances including the lapse of long period and value of the stolen property, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced from imprisonment for one year to imprisonment for six months while maintaining sentence of fine. It is ordered accordingly. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 04, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'