Partly allowed

Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2010CRR/1205/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revisions, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal against conviction for theft but commuted the petitioner's term of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him and enhanced the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to time already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 5000/-; in default, simple imprisonment for six months.

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 1205 of 2002 Date of Decision : February 17, 2010

Jagjit Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner alongwith Surjit Singh @ Pamma was tried by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala for offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 13.2.2001, the trial Court convicted them for the said offences and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each on both the counts. In default of payment of fine, the convicts were required to undergo simple imprisonment for one month on each count. Aggrieved of their conviction and sentence, the petitioner and his co-convict filed an appeal, which was partly allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 15.4.2002 by acquitting both of them of the offence under Section 411 IPC. However, their

¶13

-2-

¶14

Crl. Revision No. 1205 of 2002

¶15

sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed under Section 379 IPC were maintained.

¶16

After appreciating the entire evidence brought on the file, learned Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty for offence under Section 379 IPC. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the same. As such, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 379 IPC is well merited.

¶17

The occurrence in this case had taken place in the year 1997. Ever since then, the petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution. There is no material on the file so as to hold that the petitioner had been earlier involved in any such or similar crime. After the dismissal of his appeal on 15.4.2002, the petitioner was taken into custody. It was only on 20.6.2002 when the present revision filed by the petitioner was admitted that he was granted the concession of bail. He has, thus, already undergone a substantive period of two months and five days in jail out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve his remainder sentence. The ends of justice would be amply met by reducing his sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone by him and at the same time by

¶18

Crl. Revision No. 1205 of 2002 -3-

¶19

enhancing the amount of fine of Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/-.

¶20

Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 379 IPC is maintained, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him and the fine of Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall be required to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶21

Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed.

¶22

( T.P.S. MANN ) February 17, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1

Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirwair Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Mukesh Kumar Singla Vs Saroj Singla

Balwant Singh Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Karnail Singh Vs M/S Kumar Finance Co.

Nirmal Singh Vs State of Punjab