Disposed

Ram Pal v. Pb.State

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2010CRR/127/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition as having abated due to the petitioner's apparent death, directing a verification enquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to confirm his status before any final disposition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is disposed of as abated, subject to an enquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to ascertain if the petitioner is alive.

Ram Pal Vs Pb.State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Revision No. 127 of 1994 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Revision No.127 of 1994 Date of decision: February 01, 2010

Ram Pal

.....PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Punjab

.....RESPONDENT

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

¶10

PRESENT: Mr D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner was convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 408 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 465 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 468 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was disposed of by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 27.1.1994. The conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC was set aside. However, the conviction under Section 408 IPC was maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Sentence of fine alongwith its default

¶14

Crl. Revision No. 127 of 1994 -2-

¶15

clause was maintained. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed the present revision against his conviction and sentence under Section 408 IPC. The revision was admitted on 18.2.1994 and the petitioner was granted the concession of bail.

¶16

On 2.12.2008, when the revision came up for hearing, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that the petitioner had died. He sought time to produce on record the death certificate.

¶17

On 12.1.2010, none appeared for the petitioner, nor the death certificate of the petitioner was produced. Learned State counsel, however, prayed for a short adjournment so as to verify the fact as to whether the petitioner was alive or not.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite his best efforts, he could not contact the pairokar of the petitioner and, therefore, is unable to produce his death certificate.

¶19

Learned State counsel has submitted that H.C. Sucha Singh No.846 went to the village of the petitioner in U.P. and made an enquiry from respectables of the village about the petitioner. In that connection, he recorded statements of Santosh Devi, present Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and Parkash, Chowkidar. Both of them told him that no such person by the name of Ram Pal was residing there. Statement of one Mohan Lal son of Dogar Mal, caste Arora, resident of Chhati Gali, Ward No.3, Mohalla Sikhanwala, Patti was also recorded on 27.1.2010, wherein he stated that he had given one room in his house to Ram Pal-petitioner in the year 1985-86. Said Ram Pal used to work at Khadi Bhandar, Patti. Ever since then, he alongwith his family members left for an un-disclosed place and, therefore, he had no information about him as to whether he was dead

¶20

Crl. Revision No. 127 of 1994 -3-

¶21

or alive. The statements of Santosh Rani, Parkash and Mohan Lal, besides report dated 26.1.2010 prepared by H.C. Sucha Singh are taken on record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at no stage he has received instructions for filing an application on behalf of any near relative of the petitioner for leave to continue with the revision and, therefore, the present revision stands abated.

¶23

In view of the aforementioned, the revision is hereby disposed of as having abated. However, it shall be subject to an enquiry to be conducted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar to find out as to whether the petitioner is alive or not. In case, the petitioner has since died, the order of abatement would continue but if the petitioner is found alive, necessary intimation be sent for taking further action, if necessary, in the revision.

¶24

(T.P.S.MANN) JUDGE

¶25

February 01, 2010 Pds.

Ram Pal v. Pb.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pal v. Pb.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nachhatar Singh etc. Vs State of Pb.

Maninder Singh Vs M/S Bansal Traders

Anand Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Phoola Vs State of Haryana

Satyawan Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Dev Raj etc. Vs State of Pb.Etc.