Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep Singh @ Neetu vs State Of Punjab on 27 May, 2013
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Crl.R. No. 160 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.R. No. 160 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.5.2013
...
Jagdeep Singh @ Neetu
................Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Sh. S.S. Chandumajra, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
...
K.C. Puri, J.
This is a revision petition directed by the accused-petitioner against the judgment dated 5.1.2013 passed by Sh. Kuldip Singh, Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 10.9.2012 passed by Sh. Amanpreet Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, was dismissed.
Crl.R. No. 160 of 2013 -2-
Briefly stated, SHO Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib sent the petitioner to face trial for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 13.8.2010 Head Constable Avtar Singh alongwith other police officials laid a nakabandi near Joyti Sarup Mour, Fatehgarh Sahib and were checking the vehicles. At about 12.15 A.M. a car bearing registration No. DL- 3-CY-0639 make Skoda silver colour came from the side of village Chunni and Head Constable Avtar Singh stopped the said car. However, driver of the car tried to run away from the spot, but he was apprehended by the police party and on asking he disclosed his name as Jagdeep Singh @ Neetu s/o Bant Singh r/o village Lasoi, Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur. During his search, a .315 bore pistol was recovered from his dub. The pistol was checked and a live cartridge was recovered from the barrel of the pistol. The pistol was unloaded and the same was got checked. After investigation, challan was presented against the accused after supplying the documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused examined PW-1 Parkash Chand, PW-2 HC Avtar Singh and PW-3 Prithvi Raj. Thereafter, evidence of the prosecution was closed by order of the Court.
The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he denied. He Crl.R. No. 160 of 2013 -3- has stated that he is a cable operator and he has a dispute with one Ajmer Singh Gill, who is also a cable operator. A compromise was effected on 12.5.2010 between them. At his instance, false case has been registered. The accused was called upon to lead his defence evidence, but he chose not to lead any defence evidence.
Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, found the accused guilty for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 10.9.2012 passed by Sh. Amanpreet Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 5.1.2013 dismissed the said appeal.
The petitioner, now has impugned both the judgment and order dated 10.9.2012 passed by Sh. Amanpreet Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib and judgment dated 5.1.2013 passed by Sh. Kuldip Singh, Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, in the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below. However, he has relied upon the authorities reported as Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, Sudhir vs. State of Haryana 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 336 and Sohan Lal vs. State of Punjab Crl.R. No. 160 of 2013 -4- 1989 (2) CurLJ 446. and on the strength of the same it is submitted that petitioner has already undergone incarnation for a period of 5 months and 10 days. He is not a previous convict and he is facing trial since November 2010. So, prayer has been made for allowing the concession of probation.
On 16.5.2013, the abovesaid authorities were brought to the notice of the State counsel and he was directed to produce any contrary authority, but no contrary authority has been produced.
So, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already undergone incarnation for a period of 5 months and 10 days out of the substantive sentence of 1 year, the petitioner is allowed the concession of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. He shall furnish personal bonds and bail bonds for a sum of `20,000/- for keeping peace for a period of one year. However, in case of default of any terms of the bail bonds and personal bonds, he shall undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
The petitioner is stated to be in custody. He be released forthwith on furnishing of probation bond, in case he is not required in any other case.
The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C. Puri ) 27.5.2013 Judge chugh Crl.R. No. 160 of 2013 -5-