Disposed¶49

Om Parkash v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2025CRR/627/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRR-627-2009(O&M) & CRR-810-2009(O&M); Punjab & Haryana HC, Jasjit Singh Bedi J. (oral), 19.05.2025; Section 51 Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972; possession of 26 and 22 dead partridges; Prince Hotel owner Om Parkash and Jai Pal; conviction upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone (02 months); fine Rs.5000/- each and default sentence intact; appeals dismissed 02.03.2009 (Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad); sentence suspended 30.04.2009; FIR 29.01.2001; amicus curiae appointed for unrepresented petitioner; petitions disposed.

What did the court decide?

Both revision petitions disposed of: conviction upheld; sentence reduced to the period already undergone (02 months each); fine of Rs.5000/- each and sentence in default of payment of fine left intact. ¶49

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether, with the conviction conceded by counsel, the sentences of the petitioners (convicted under Section 51, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for possession of dead partridges) should be reduced to the period already undergone, given that the FIR was registered on 29.01.2001 and final hearing took place after a gap of more than 24 years.

¶41

Court's answer

Conviction upheld: it stands established beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioners were apprehended with dead partridges and their conviction has rightly been recorded.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

While upholding the conviction, the sentence imposed on the accused/petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them, i.e. 02 months respectively.

¶48

Key takeaways

The sentence of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine remain intact.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Jasjit Singh Bedi, J., oral decision of 19.05.2025) disposed of two revision petitions, CRR-627-2009(O&M) (Om Parkash) and CRR-810-2009(O&M) (Jai Pal), arising out of one and the same FIR registered on 29.01.2001. The petitioners — Jai Pal and Om Parkash, owner of Prince Hotel — had been arrested in possession of 26 and 22 dead partridges respectively, convicted under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Faridabad (judgment and order of sentence dated 26/27.07.2005: RI 3 years each, fine Rs.5000/- each, RI 6 months in default of payment of fine), and their appeals dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 02.03.2009. Counsel did not wish to challenge the conviction and sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone in view of the more-than-24-year pendency; the State, citing custody certificates dated 16.05.2025, contended the nature of the allegations entitled the petitioners to no concession. Upholding the conviction as rightly recorded, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (02 months each) while leaving the fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine intact; sentence had stood suspended since 30.04.2009. An Amicus Curiae (Ms. Dheerja, Advocate) was appointed for the unrepresented petitioner Jai Pal.

¶1

CRR-627-2009(O&M)

¶2

#1#

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH .

¶4

Date of Decision:-19.05.2025

¶5

CRR-627-2009(O&M)

¶6

Om Parkash .

¶7

......Petitioner.

¶8

Vs. State of Haryana .

¶9

......Respondent.

¶10

AND

¶11

CRR-810-2009(O&M)

Jai Pal .

......Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Haryana .

¶16

......Respondent.

¶17

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

¶18

Present:Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner (in CRR-627-2009).

¶19

Ms. Dheerja, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner (in CRR-810-2009).

¶20

Mr. Viney Phogat, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

¶21

¶22

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

¶23

By this common order I shall dispose of both the

¶24

aforementioned revision petitions as the same have arisen out of one and the

¶25

same FIR.

¶26

The present revision petitions have been filed impugning the

¶27

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.20 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

#2#

¶29

CRR-627-2009(O&M)

¶30

judgment dated 02.03.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby the appeals filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26/27.07.2005 passed by Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Faridabad has been dismissed.

¶31

Today case was listed for hearing. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner-Jai Pal in CRR-810-2009. Same was the position on the last date of hearing. Ms. Dheerja, Advocate bearing Enrolment No.PH/9425/2022 present in court is hereby appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the petitioner-Jai Pal in CRR-810-2009. The Registry is directed to pay her fee as per rules.

¶32

The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 29.01.2001. The judgment of conviction was passed on 26/27.07.2005 by the Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Faridabad. The Appeal filed against the order of conviction was dismissed on 02.03.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The instant revision petitions were filed on 10.03.2009 and 26.03.2009 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of more than 24 years from the date of registration of the FIR.

¶33

The brief facts of the case are that Jai Pal (petitioner in CRR810-2009) and Om Parkash (petitioner in CRR-627-2009) owner of Prince Hotel were arrested for keeing in their possession of 26 & 22 partridges respectively. On submission of the challan and conclusion of the Trial, they came to be convicted and sentenced by the Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Faridabad vide judgment and order of sentence dated 26/27.07.2005 as under:-

¶34

Offences under Section	Sentence	Fine	RI/SI in default of payment of fine
Section 51 of Wild Life	RI for 03 Years	Rs.5000/- each	RI for 06 Months each
(Protection)Act,1972	each

¶35

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.20 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRR-627-2009(O&M)

¶37

#3#

¶38

The accused/petitioners preferred appeals which came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 02.03.2009 thereby dismissing their appeals.

¶39

The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present revision petition.

¶40

During the pendency of the instant revision petitions, the sentence of the accused/petitioners were suspended vide orders dated 30.04.2009 respectively.

¶41

The learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in CRR-627-2009 and the Amicus Curiae for the accused/petitioner in CRR-810-2009 at the very outset submit that they do not wish to challenge their conviction but keeping in view the fact that the FIR came to be registered on 29.01.2001 and the petitions have come up for final hearing now after a gap of more than 24 years, their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶42

The Counsel for the State on the other hand has placed on record the custody certificates dated 16.05.2025. He contends that the nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioners does not entitle them to any concession. Therefore, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed without any modification.

¶43

I have heard counsel for the parties.

¶44

A perusal of the record would reveal that it stands established beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioners were apprehended with dead partridges and therefore their conviction has rightly been recorded. However, the FIR in the instant case came to be registered in 2001. The appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed on 02.03.2009. The present revision petitions were filed in the year 2009 and the petitioners were

¶45

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.20 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

#4#

¶47

CRR-627-2009(O&M)

¶48

granted the benefit of suspension of sentence on 30.04.2009 respectively. Therefore, while upholding their conviction I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed on the accused/petitioners to the period already undergone by them i.e. 02 months respectively. However, the sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact.

¶49