AT CHANDIGARH v. State of Punjab

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Rev. No.1703 of 2010 Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Rev. No.2301 of 2010 *****

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This order shall dispose of Crl. Rev. No.1703 of 2010 and Crl. Rev. No.2301 of 2010. Crl. Rev. No.1703 of 2010 has been filed by Vipin Kumar and others against the order dated 12.10.2006, wherein, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the commission of offence under Section 341 IPC (for simple imprisonment for one month) and under Section 506 IPC (rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1000/-) and in default of same, they were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Crl. Rev. No.1703 of 2010 2 two months, whereas, Crl. Rev. No.2301 of 2010 has been filed by Sunil Jain-complainant against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib in Crl. Appeal No.52RT/09/9.11.2006 in FIR No.173 dated 28.08.1999 under Sections 323, 341, 506/34 IPC at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby, the Appellate Court has released the accused respondents No.2 and 3 on probation. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the commission of offence under Section 341 IPC (for simple imprisonment for one month) and under Section 506 IPC (rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1000/-) and in default of same, they were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib upheld the conviction but, however, ordered the accused to be released on probation on their furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety in like amount for keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of one year and a fine already deposited by the petitioners was ordered to be adjusted towards litigation expenses. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. The said application was dismissed on 15.05.2009 and petitioner No.2-Parmodh Kumar approached this Court vide Crl. Rev. No.2056 of

2009. The same was allowed on 11.08.2009 to the extent that petitioners have been allowed to place on record the statements of Vijay Kuti, Parmod Kumar, Vipin Kumar, Malkiat Singh and Charanjit Singh as Ex.D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6, respectively. The Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration these statements while dismissing the appeal and releasing the petitioners on probation. Crl. Rev. No.1703 of 2010 3 This is a revision petition. The Court has a limited jurisdiction of interference. The facts, in short, are that the petitioner Sunil Jain was traveling in his Car No.PB-10-AB-4444 on 19.07.1999 and he was going to Ludhiana from Patiala. Sham Lal Jindal and Ravinder Jindal were also accompanying him. They stopped on the way for having snacks at the Floating Restaurant, Sirhind. After having a short break, they came to the car parking of the Floating Restaurant as they were about to proceed to Ludhiana, two persons namely Parmod Kumar and his brother Vipan Kumar accompanied by two other persons came from Ludhiana and stopped in the car parking. The petitioner took Parmod Kumar aside and made a demand of money lent to him. He requested that long time has been passed but money has not been returned by Parmod Kumar. When the complainant uttered these words, Parmod Kumar got enraged and started abusing him. As the petitioner tried to pacify him, Vipan Kumar and other two persons came at the spot. Parmod Kumar along with his accomplice caught hold of the complainant. They tried to push him inside their car and started saying that he be thrown in the Saundha head canal, so that he would not trouble them in future. He also stated that the petitioner has insulted Parmod Kumar in front of his friends and for that reason he be finished. The petitioner escaped from their clutches, as they were trying him to put in the car. Petitioner raised hue and cry and Rajinder Jindal and Sham Lal Jindal along with other persons rescued him from the accused. Thereafter the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence in their car. The prosecution examined PW-1 Sunil Jain, complainant. He proved the incident. The said fact was also corroborated by PW-2 Sham Lal, who was accompanying Sunil Jain, complainant. The statement of Sunil Jain was found convincing. As such, the argument of learned counsel Crl. Rev. No.1703 of 2010 4 that the statements in the form of exhibits of Vijay Kuti, Parmod Kumar, Vipin Kumar, Malkiat Singh and Charanjit Singh were not taken into consideration, will not cut any ice so long the prosecution has been able to prove their case beyond doubt. In any case, the said statements were placed on record before the Appellate Court as exhibits. Moreover, the trial Court has taken a very lenient view and convicted the petitioners only for six months under Section 506 IPC and one month under Section 341 IPC. The Appellate Court has released the petitioners on probation. Thus, the sentence stands modified. A lenient view has already been taken. Nothing more has been pointed out which may enable this Court to set aside the well reasoned judgment and order dated 12.10.2006 passed by the trial Court and order dated 07.04.2010 passed by the Appellate Court upholding the conviction and modifying the sentence while granting probation. Dismissed. Crl. Rev. No.2301 of 2010 praying for setting aside the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which, the accused has been released on probation, also has no merit. While granting the said probation, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib specifically noted that the accused were not previous convicts and nor were they habitual offenders. It was further noticed that they were facing trial since long. No reason has been pointed out as to why the said probation should not be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the same is also dismissed being devoid of merits.

26.10.2010 gurpreet (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE