Babu Singh vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC'' for short) vide judgment dated 12.9.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Dhuri. Vide order of even date, petitioner was ordered to undergo the following sentence:

Under Section 420 IPC To undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 467 IPC To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 468 IPC To undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 471 IPC To undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Sangrur vide judgment dated 7.6.2010. Hence, the present revision petition.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 9 of its judgment, are as under:

Case of the prosecution before learned trial Court was that Babu Singh son of Lal Singh made a written complaint before Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur stating therein that Bhag Singh son of Kartar Singh and Gajjan Singh, driver had taken his scooter away and had mortgaged it. The scooter was available in the house of Gajjan Singh, who was indulging in sale of illicit liquor after forming a gang for the purpose. He had made a request that the possession of the scooter after recovering it from said Gajjan Singh be delivered to him. Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur directed Station House Officer of Police Station, Dhuri to enquire into the matter and proceed further in accordance with law. However, during investigation it came out that a scooter bearing registration No. PAR-3515, make Vespa, Model 1988, was purchased by Bhola Singh from Pal Singh and was sold by him, after 7-8 months of its purchase, to Bhag Singh. Said Bhag Singh further transferred scooter, after 3-4 months of its purchase by him, to Smt. Hakumete alias Muna wife of Mushtaq. However, Babu Singh took registration certificate of the scooter from Kulwant Kaur wife of Bhag Singh by promising to hand it over to Smt. Hakumate alias Muna. He, however, instead of handing over the registration certificate of the scooter to Hakumate, got it transferred in his own name by appending his thumb impressions on the application, purporting to be that of Pal Singh original owner of the scooter. However, Pal Singh swore an affidavit to the effect that he did not deliver any affidavit in the office of Registering Authority (SDM), Dhuri for transfer of the scooter in his name. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Necessary record was taken into possession, thumb impression on the application for transfer was got compared with the standard thumb impression of Pal Singh and on conclusion of investigation a report in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code was prepared and was presented before the learned trial Court.

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by him. The scooter in question valued Rs. 2200/- and the same has since been returned to the complainant. Petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family and is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 2002.

As per the custody certificate placed on record by the learned State counsel, petitioner has undergone 3 months and 22 days of actual sentence as on 20.9.2010. Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.

Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner to already undergone by him. Fine, as imposed by the trial Court, is stated to have already been deposited by the petitioner.

Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Petitioner, who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.