Nigai Ram vs State of Haryana

Virender Singh, J.—Nigai Ram son of Ami Lal, the petitioner herein has filed the present revision against the impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar dated 19.5.1997 whereby the conviction of the petitioner u/s 411 has been confirmed. However, the substantive sentence of the petitioner from three years was reduced to one year and six months. The sentence of fine was also reduced from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 1500/-.

The petitioner was charged for keeping in his possession one he-buffalo belonging to village Bichpari and was missing from the said village and that he-buffalo belongs to Gram Panchayat. On search it was found to be in possession of the petitioner. On this allegation, the petitioner was booked and charged u/s 411 IPC. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner for the said charge and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner had preferred the appeal and the appellate court while maintaining conviction of the petitioner reduced the substantive sentence from three years to one year and six months and sentence of fine was reduced from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 1500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo SI for six months. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

I have heard Mr. Tahar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajnish Dhanda, learned Assistant Advocate General. Haryana, With their assistance I have also gone through the record of the case.

Mr. Tahar Singh at the very outset submits that he does not want to assail the impugned judgment on merits and has confined his arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. Making his submissions on this count, it is contended by the learned counsel that as the petitioner has already undergone 70 days, the matter relates to the year 1997. He is not a previous convict and as such, the present cases calls for leniency towards the quantum of sentence.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously.

I find substance in the submission made by the of the present case into consideration. I am of the view that ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of one year and six months as awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. However, the fine part would remain the same as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned judgment.

Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed on merits with the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above.