Kuldip Singh vs State of Punjab .

S. S. Dewan, J.

Kuldip Singh Petitioner and two others, namely, Mohinder Singh and Darbara Singh were brought to trial before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur, on the charges under Ss. 409, and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Mohinder Singh and Darbara Singh were acquitted of the charge whereas Kuldip Singh was convicted under S. 409, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, not only upheld his conviction but affirmed his sentence.

In short, the prosecution case is that on 1.2.1978, Kuldip Singh petitioner being an employee in the irrigation Department, Lining SubDivision No. 1, Sangrur, was paid Rs. 6994.10 P. for disbursement to the staff of the Lining SubDivision as their pay. The petitioner left Patiala at about 3 p.m. for Sangrur alongwith Ujagar Singh and Balbir Singh, were directed to accompany him guards. He did not dispurse the amount at Sangrur and rather made a report in Police Station Bhiwanigarh at about 7 p.m. that when he went to answer the call of nature in the pits behind the busstand of Bhiwanigarh, two persons, with muffled faces, robbed him of that amount and caused him injuries. When the petitioner was examined by a Medical Officer, he opined that the injuries could be caused by a friendly hand. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer got suspicious and arrested the petitioner on 8.2.1978. On interrogation by the Sub Inspector, the petitioner suffered disclosure statement leading to the recovery of Rs. 6994.10. from the specified place of concealment and the same were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit P.W.7/B. During the Course of investigation, the other accused, namely, Mohinder Singh and Darbara Singh were also arrested and on interrogation by the SubInspector, they got recovered a bag belonging to the petitioner and a sword and the same were taken into possession.

The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. The case against the petitioner rests primarily on the unimpeachable testimony of Tarlochan Singh P.W.2, Romesh Chander Mehta, P.W.5, Balbir Singh, P.W.6, Kartar Singh, P.W.7 and SubInspector Satbir Singh, P.W.9. The petitioner took rather vacillating pleas in defence and the trial Court has unhesitatingly found that the defence plea taken up by the petitioner was merely a and cock bull story and rejected it out of hand. The Appellate Court also affirmed the said finding.

Mr. Ashok Bhan, appearing for petitioner he raised the identical argument which were earlier urged before the Appellate Court and which have been elaborately repelled. To my mind it would be totally wasteful to traverse the same ground over again. It suffices to mention that I would endorse into the reasoning and the finding of the Appellate Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought reduction in the sentence. Emphasis is laid on the fact that occurrence took place as far back as 1978 and the petitioner has gone through protracted trial since then, There Is marginal scope for reduction in the sentence, in view of the fact that the petitioner has lot his job. Accordingly I reduce his sentence of imprisonment to 6 months but impose a fine of Rs. 1000/ in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court as I feel that it will meet the ends of justice. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months.

With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition fails and herein dismissed.