Randhir Singh vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Petitioner was convicted for an offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short'' IPC) by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Samana Patiala vide judgment dated 12.4.2007. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - u/s 379 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner had preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Patiala vide order dated 26.4.2010. Hence, the present revision petition.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, read as under:

The present case was registered on the statement of Teja Singh son of Sucha Singh resident of village Alampur, wherein he has stated that he is an agriculturist and used to sell his agricultural produce on the shop of Prem Chand Commission Agent. On 24.6.2002, he got advance of Rs. 25000/ - from Prem Chand. He wrapped the money in a handerchief and put it in a bag. He started towards bus stand to hire a bus for going to his village. When he reached near Flour Mill of Daulat Ram, both the accused met him. They started talking to him and also told their names to the complainant. The accused also came to bus stand. They were talking to the complainant and in the mean time a bus came for his village. There was rush in the bus. Complainant preferred to sit on the roof of the bus and when he climbed the staircase of bus, accused/appellant Randhir Singh gave cut with blade in the lower side in the bag. The money wrapped in the handkerchief fell down. Accused Mangal Singh picked up the money and both the accused managed to escape. Complainant raised raula but could not catch the accused. He reported the matter to the police. SI Barinder Singh conducted investigation of the case. He had sent ruqa and the FIR was registered against the accused. Rough site plan was prepared. On 30.6.2002 both the accused were arrested and stolen currency along with handkerchief was recovered and taken into possession. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation and other formalities, the instant challan was put in the Court against the accused.

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner u/s 379 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that money in question was recovered during investigation. Petitioner has undergone more than five months of actual sentence. In another case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 416 dated 8.7.2000 at Police Station Samana u/s 379 IPC, petitioner has since been discharged. Fine has already been deposited by the petitioner. Petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 2002 and is the only bread earner of the family.

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.

Hence, the conviction of the petitioner u/s 379 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.