The High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to time already undergone, finding no evidence to support the claim that the case was falsely framed due to labor disputes.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 789 of 2002 Date of decision : 21-05-2009
Rattan Lal
.....Petitioner
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Present : Mr. Navin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Dilbag Singh, A.A.G., Haryana for the State.
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula dated 22-03-2002 vide which the appeal against the judgment dated 26-11-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, convicting the petitioner under Section 381 IPC and further sentencing him to go rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.400/-, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner was apprehended while fleeing from the scene at 4 P.M. and was caught red handed with two ladies suits (Exhibit P-1 and P-2) by the security guard PW-2 Pawan Kumar. The petitioner had tried to escape from the spot and jumped over the boundary wall. He had fallen down and was caught by security guard. After the police received information, they arrived at the spot. Accused made a disclosure statement
Criminal Revision No. 789 of 2002 -2-
Exhibit PB which led to recovery of 66 suits from his residence. The Court below had not taken into consideration the fact that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. The witness which are examined by the prosecution, all are interested witnesses because of being loyal to their employer. As per the allegation, the petitioner was apprehended during the day time but no public witness was examined and joined in the investigation of the case. However, it was further alleged that he has not been paid the salary for couple of months at the time of framing of case against him and when he demanded his salaries, he was beaten mercilessly by PW-4 Jugal Kishore and other employees of the Amartex. The Medico Legal Reports was prepared by the Doctor after medical examination. The prosecution deliberately did not bring on record the statements of the Doctor who prepared the M.L.R. Jugal Kishore (PW-4) and Davinder Singh (PW-5) and other persons after giving severe beatings to the petitioner, handed over to police with two pieces of lady suits to frame him.
After having gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below and having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there is no suggestion to any of witnesses examined from Amartex that a false case has been registered because of a dispute with Amartex regarding non-payment of the salary. Pawan Kumar (PW-2) and Prit Pal Singh, ASI (PW-3) have not been cross examined inspite of the due opportunity. Complainant-Davinder Singh was examined as PW-5 but again there was no suggestion regarding any dispute with the Amartex Industry. There is also no proof of any litigation pending pertaining to the
Criminal Revision No. 789 of 2002 -3-
non-payment of the salary. Hence, there is no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. The prosecution has successfully proved the case against the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained.
Coming to the question of sentence, it may be noticed that the occurrence took place in the year 1999. He has already undergone 3 months and 23 days. He is said to be the only bread earner of the family. It would not be just to send him behind bars after he was released on bail in the year 2002. He has already undergone a substantial period of sentence.
Taking into account the totality of the facts of this present case, the offence for which, he is convicted, as well as, the agony of litigation which he was undergoing since 1999 and having already undergone a further sentence of 3 ½ months, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence, from what was already awarded, to that of `as already undergone.'
With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, as awarded by the trial Court to that as already undergone, the present Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE
21-05-2009 gurpreet
Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 381 IPC should be maintained.
Whether the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment should be modified considering time already served.
Rattan Lal
State of Haryana
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
