Partly allowed¶27

Harikesh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2026CRR/1398/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Harikesh v. State of Haryana, CRR-1398-2009, P&H High Court, decided 06.07.2026 (Ramesh Chander Dimri J.). Conviction under Sections 379/411 IPC affirmed on petitioner's own statement; three-year rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone (1 year 4 months 21 days) on leniency grounds: truck recovered with wheat bags, no other criminal case, 26 years elapsed. Marked not reportable; interim applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Judgments of conviction confirmed; substantive sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone (1 year 4 months and 21 days); interim applications disposed of. ¶27

Harikesh Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgments of conviction confirmed; substantive sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone (1 year 4 months and 21 days); interim applications disposed of.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgments of conviction should be confirmed, the petitioner having stated through counsel that he does not challenge them on merits. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Since the petitioner does not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction on merits, those judgments of conviction are confirmed.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The present case is a fit one for reducing the sentence imposed on the petitioner to the period already undergone (1 year 4 months and 21 days), the Court being of the opinion that the sentence already undergone is sufficient to deter him, the stolen truck having been recovered during investigation with wheat bags loaded in it, no other criminal case being lodged against him, and 26 years having elapsed since the occurrence.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision petition CRR-1398-2009, High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Ramesh Chander Dimri J., oral), decided 06.07.2026. Harikesh, tried with co-accused Joginder @ Jinda for offences under Sections 379/411 IPC arising from the theft of truck HR 20B/1580 (FIR No.152 dated 31.05.2000, Police Station City Hansi), was convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment; his appeal was dismissed on 12.07.2007 (proceedings qua the deceased co-accused having been dropped on 10.01.2007). Before this Court, counsel stated at Bar that the petitioner did not challenge the convictions; the Court confirmed them but, noting recovery of the truck during investigation with wheat bags loaded in it, the custody certificate showing no other criminal case and 1 year 4 months 21 days already undergone, and the lapse of 26 years since the occurrence, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Petition partly allowed; interim applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(206) CRR-1398-2009 Decided on: 06.07.2026

¶3

Harikesh ……Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana ..…Respondent

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

¶7

Present:Mr.C.R.Narwal, Advocate, f or Mr.S.N.Pillania, Advocate, f or the petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG , Haryana.

¶9

Ramesh Chander Dimri J. (Oral) :

¶10

Allegations against the pet i tioner and his co-accused are that on the intervening night of 28.05. 2 000 and 29.05.2000, a truc k bearing r e gistration No.HR 20B/1580 b elonging to the complainan t Rajender w as stolen from the area of P o lice Station City Hansi. Suc h theft led to registration of FIR No. 1 52 dated 31.05.2000 unde r Sections 3 79 and 411 of the Indian Pen a l Code at Police Station Cit y Hansi. T h e said truck was subsequent l y recovered from custody o f the petiti o ner and his co-accused Jo g inder @ Jinda. They were according l y arrested in the said FIR an d were tried for offences unde r

¶11

SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left

¶12

CRR-1398-2009

¶13

-2-

¶14

Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Their trial led to their conviction under Section 411 of the said Code and they were accordingly sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each under the said section.

¶15

They filed appeals against the said conviction and sentences. During the pendency of the said appeals, co-accused Joginder @ Jinda died. The said fact is recorded in the judgment passed by the Learned Appellate Court. The proceedings qua him, therefore, were dropped on 10.01.2007. His appeal was accordingly consigned to records. Appeal filed by the petitioner was however dismissed by the said Court on 12.07.2007. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed the present petition. It was admitted. His sentence was suspended by this Court on 15.12.2009.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the petition in question.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has instructions from the petitioner to make a statement at Bar that the petitioner does not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction but leniency may be shown to him in the matter of imposition of sentence. He also says that the truck allegedly stolen, as per the prosecution case itself, was recovered during investigation with the bags of wheat loaded in the same and therefore so far as material loss is concerned, it is almost negligible in the matter in question.

¶18

SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left

¶19

CRR-1398-2009

¶20

-3-

¶21

Learned State Counsel has opposed his prayer for showing leniency in the matter of imposition of sentence but fairly concedes that the stolen truck, as is evident from the impugned judgments of conviction, with the bags of wheat loaded in it, was recovered during investigation and therefore, no material loss appears to have been caused to the complainant except for the loss caused during the theft period. He has also filed custody certificate in respect of the petitioner showing that the petitioner has already undergone a substantive sentence of 1 year 4 months and 21 days. Through the impugned judgments and order, the petitioner was awarded the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at Bar that the petitioner does not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction on merits, the same are confirmed. However, a perusal of custody certificate filed today in the Court shows that there is no other criminal case lodged against the petitioner except the present one. He is stated to have already undergone a substantive sentence of 1 year 4 months and 21 days out of the total sentence of 3 years. A period of 26 years has elapsed since the date of occurrence. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the sentence already undergone by the petitioner in the case in

¶23

SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left

¶24

CRR-1398-2009

¶25

-4-

¶26

question is a sufficient sentence to deter him to repeat the offences of the like nature. The truck in question, as is borne out of the record, was recovered by the investigating agency during investigation. At the time of such recovery, it contained wheat bags loaded in the same. In view thereof, I find the present case to be a fit one for reducing sentence imposed on the petitioner to the period already undergone. I order accordingly.

¶27

The present petition is partly allowed in the above-stated terms. All interim application/s, if any, stand disposed of.

¶28

July 6^th, 2 sailesh	026 (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) JUDGE
	Whetherspeaking/reasoned : No
	Whether Reportable : No

¶29

SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left

Harikesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartik Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Suket Kumar Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ehc Dalbag Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Parvinder Singh Vs M.R. Khullar & Anr.

Kirpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab