Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Irfan vs State Of Haryana on 6 December, 2017

Author: Kuldip Singh

Bench: Kuldip Singh

                                219
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                           CRR No. 3633 of 2017 (O/M)
                                           Date of decision : 6.12.2017

Irfan                                                 ....... Revisionist

                                         Versus

State of Haryana                                      ....... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH

Present:-    Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate, for revisionist.

             Mr. Pawan Garg, AAG Haryana.

1.           Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to
             see the judgment ?
2.           To be referred to the Reporter or not.
3.           Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
             -.-                      -.-

KULDIP SINGH J. (ORAL)

Heard. The lower Court record received and perused. It comes out that complainant Devender (PW3) had stated that when they parked the motorcycle outside the hotel, accused broke the lock, drove the same and committed the theft.p In the statement before the Court, he also stated that he had seen that accused was going away with the motorcycle. They raised alarm, on which public apprehended the accused- revisionist. It shows that motorcycle was actually removed by revisionist, but he could not succeed in running away with the motorcycle. Therefore, offence under Section 379 IPC was rightly proved against revisionist.

Faced with these circumstances, the learned counsel for revisionist pressed the revision on the quantum of sentence.

The lower Court has awarded him simple imprisonment for one year alongwith fine. Custody certificate shows that after present crime on 8.2.2015, revisionist was involved in three other FIRs, two for the theft and 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 10-12-2017 13:35:32 ::: CRR No. 3633 of 2017 (O/M) -2- one under the Arms Act.

Considering that after getting bail in present case, revisionist was involved in more crime of similar nature, there is no ground to reduce the sentence as well. Hence, revision is dismissed.




                                                    (KULDIP SINGH)
                                                       JUDGE
6.12.2017
sjks


Whether speaking / reasoned             :    Yes


Whether Reportable                      :    No




                               2 of 2
            ::: Downloaded on - 10-12-2017 13:35:34 :::