Faqir Chand vs State of Punjab

Sat Pal, J. (Oral)

This prevision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ''the Code'') and is

directed against the judgment dated 22nd October, 1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Jalandhar and judgment dated 18th May,

1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 6/7th November, 1987, the petitioner, who was working as Sorting Assistant in the Railway Mail

Service department is alleged to have stolen 32 foreing articles and one inland article (letters) deliverable to different addressees. The said letters

were, however, not recovered from his person but were found in a bag belonging to the petitioner. It has also been proved on record that one of

the foreign letters contained draft of Rs. 300/.

The learned Judicial Magistrate vide her judgment dated 22nd October, 1993 convicted the petitioner under Section 52 of the Indian Posts

Office Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and the pay a sum of Rs. 200/ as fine, in default whereof

he was further required to undergo SI for seven days. The petitioner challenged this order before the Session Court and the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Jalandhar by his judgment dated 18th May, 1995 upheld the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the substantive sentence from

one year to six months. The fine was, however, maintained.

Notice of this petition was given to the Advocate General, Punjab on 7th September, 1995 limited on the point of sentence.

Mr. Takkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case was registered in November 1987 and the petitioner

had been facing trial for the last over seven years. He further submits that the petitioner is 56 years old and is having five children including three

daughters, two of whom are of marriageable age. He further submits that he is not a previous convict. Lastly he submits that the substantive

sentence awarded to the petitioner is six months and the petitioner has already undergone almost four months. He, therefore, contended that lenient

view may be taken in the case of petitioner who was a Government servant and he should be released on probation. In support of his contention

the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajbir v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1278 and a

decision of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) Recent Criminal Reports 299 (Criminal Revision No. 284 of 1995, decided

on 20th July, 1995).

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

From the records I find that the amount alleged to have been embezzled comes to Rs. 300/ only in this case. Keeping in view that the petitioner

had been facing trial for the last over seven years and he is having five children including three daughters and further he has already undergone

sentence for a period of about four months and further he is not a previous convict, I am of the view that it is a fit case for release of the petitioner

on probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The view I have taken finds full support from the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Rajbir (supra).

For the reasons recorded hereinabove the conviction of the petitioner is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and it is

directed that the petitioner be released on probation on his entering into bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the trial Court and to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to

keep peace and be of good behaviour. It is further directed that the petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine in the trial court within one week

from today in case he has not already deposited the said amount. Except for this modification in the sentence, the revision is dismissed on merits.