In criminal revisions regarding theft of scrap iron, the High Court declined to grant probation due to the termination of petitioners' service. It reduced sentences for proven offences to the period already undergone and upheld the fines.
Sentences reduced to the period already undergone; fines sustained; revisions dismissed with modifications.
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
Date of Decision : March 25, 2011. Crl. Revision No. 495 of 2005
Raj Kumar son of Sh. Gokal Chand, resident of Gali No. 4, Gandhi Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib
......... Petitioner
Versus. State of Punjab ....... Respondent Crl. Revision No. 335 of 2005 Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Ram Parkash r/o Gali No. 4, Gandhi Nagar Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib ........... Petitioner Versus. State of Punjab ....... Respondent Crl. Revision No. 314 of 2005 1. Onkar Singh son of Shri Lekh Raj, resident of H. No. 27, Gali No. 10, Gandhi Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib 2. Ajay Kumar son of Shri Laxmi Narain, resident of Gali No. 10, Gandhi Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib
........... Petitioners Versus. State of Punjab ....... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL. Present:Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, with, Mr. Sandeep Gehalawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG Punjab, for the respondent-State.
M. JEYAPAUL, J. (ORAL)
A1-Pawan Kumar, A2-Raj Kumar, A3-Onkar Singh, and A4-Ajay
Kumar faced the trial before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Crl. Revision No. 495 of 2005 and other connected cases
-2-
Amloh, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ' the IPC'). A3-Onkar Singh and A4-Ajay Kumar have jointly filed Criminal Revision No. 314 of 2005, whereas A1-Pawan Kumar and A2-Raj Kumar have filed separate Criminal Revisions No. 335 of 2005 and 495 of 2005 respectively. All the four accused were convicted for offence under Section 420 IPC and were sentenced to undergo two years each rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to undergo a further period of one month. They were convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. They were also convicted under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. All the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 468 IPC.
Crl. Revision No. 495 of 2005 and other connected cases
-3-
the quantum of sentence awarded to them by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. That was the reason why this Court has not gone in detail the facts and circumstances of this case.
Crl. Revision No. 495 of 2005 and other connected cases
-4-
of theft levelled as against them before one Court or the other. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that 42 tonnes of scrap materials alleged to have been lifted from the very employer of the petitioners had already been recovered. The fact remains that no financial loss had occasioned to the complainant employer. It is on record that the petitioners who were directed to attend the enquiry by the employer failed to attend the enquiry and as a result of which their employment was already terminated by the employer. The result is that the petitioners have lost their avocations with the employer who lodged the complaint on the charge of theft. No criminal antecedents is reported as against the petitiones.
(M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE
March 25, 2011. sjks.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, who were first offenders with no criminal antecedents, are eligible for release on probation given the nature of the theft offence.
Whether the sentences already undergone by the petitioners should be treated as sufficient to reduce the conviction sentences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar
Pawan Kumar
Onkar Singh
Ajay Kumar
State of Punjab
M. Jeyapaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
