Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Duggal vs State Of Punjab on 25 November, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Revision No.3631 of 2013
.....
Date of decision:25.11.2014
Rajiv Duggal
...Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
(2) Criminal Revision No.3717 of 2013
.....
Vijay Kumar
...Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr. Revision
No.3631 of 2013.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr.
Revision No.3717 of 2013.
Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for
the respondent-State.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned two criminal revision petitions i.e. Criminal Revision No.3631 of 2013 filed by Rajiv HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.18 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision Nos.3631 of 2013 etc. [2] Duggal and Criminal Revision No.3717 of 2013 filed by Vijay Kumar as these arose out of the same FIR and from the similar impugned judgments dated 1.11.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 14.1.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala, have been dismissed.
These criminal revision petitions have been filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned judgments dated 1.11.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. In the revision petitions, it is stated that the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 14.1.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala in case FIR No.149 dated 24.12.2004 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 457, 380, 465 and 471 IPC at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. However, the petitioners have been convicted for the offences under Sections 451 and 380 IPC and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of `1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four days each for the offences under Sections 451 and 380 IPC separately. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
The petitioners filed appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, who vide her judgments dated 1.11.2013 has upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals. HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.18 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Revision Nos.3631 of 2013 etc. [3] The brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2004, Paramjit Dev suffered a statement before ASI Lakhwinder Singh, In-charge, Police Post Hussainpur, to the effect that he is working as a Security Guard at the ATM Machine of UTI Bank being the employee of AP Securities Private Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as 'AP Securities'). On that day at about 8.30 p.m., he was on his duty. Two persons came on a motorcycle make Hero Honda bearing registration No.PB-08-AN-8137 and disclosed him that they had come to repair the ATM Machine. They disclosed their names as Rajiv Duggal and Vijay Kumar. He told them that there was no fault in the ATM Machine, but, they insisted that they had been sent from Jalandhar to repair the same. They asked for the register, but did not enter anything in it and asked him to close down the shutter. Meantime, the subsequent shift guard Balwinder Kumar also came earlier due to the anticipation of fog. The shutter was little bit open. From the said space, they saw that after opening the ATM Machine, the said two persons were putting the cash in their bag of red and black colour. When they opened the shutter, they tried to frisk away and upon being questioned as to where they were taking the money, they tried to run away, but apprehended. Meantime, the Railway Police Force under ASI Baldev Singh also came. On the said statement, aforesaid FIR was registered. Cash of `5,79,100/-, Nokia Mobile phone and hero Honda motorcycle were taken in police possession.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against the accused-petitioners framed charges for the offences HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.18 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision Nos.3631 of 2013 etc. [4] punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 465 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Paramjit Dev, who deposed as per prosecution version. PW-2 Constable Gurcharan Singh produced the recovered currency notes inventory. PW-3 Balwinder Kumar, eye-witness deposed as per prosecution version. PW-4 HC Joginder Singh mainly deposed regarding sending `Ruqa' to Police Station and also regarding recovery memo etc. PW-5 ASI Lakhwinder Singh, Investigating officer also deposed regarding investigation of the case.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution, but they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent.
In the defence, the accused examined DW-1 Sudesh Kumar Agnihotri, Regional Manager, AP Securities, DW-2 Ravi Verma, Branch Manager, ICICI, Jalandhar Branch and DW-3 Mahesh Kumar.
After going through the evidence on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as stated above. The appeals filed against the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not contest the concurrent findings of the Courts below and did not HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.18 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision Nos.3631 of 2013 etc. [5] press the conviction of the petitioners, but only prayed for reduction of the sentence.
Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State has placed custody certificates dated 18.12.2013 of the petitioners on record, vide which the petitioner Rajiv Duggal remained in custody for six months and five days out of the maximum sentence of two years and Vijay Kumar has remained in custody for five months and one day out of the maximum sentence of two years upto 18.12.2013.
I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record carefully and minutely.
From the record, I find that the prosecution has produced the witnesses to prove the occurrence. The accused-petitioners were apprehended on the spot. The complainant and the eye witness have deposed consistently regarding the prosecution version. No material discrepancies etc. have been pointed out. Nothing has been pointed out at the time of arguments to show any illegality in the judgments passed by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also not shown anything to show that the judgments passed by the Courts below are perverse. Nothing has been argued that which material evidence has been misread by the Courts below and which material evidence has been left by the Courts below.
These are revision petitions and in the revision petition the Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence like the Court of appeal. The HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.18 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision Nos.3631 of 2013 etc. [6] Court is to show whether the order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, perverse or some material evidence has not been discussed or the evidence has not been discussed in the right perspective. No illegality has been committed by the Courts below while convicting the petitioners. Therefore, the conviction of both the petitioners is upheld.
As regards the sentence, it is argued that both the petitioners are the first offenders and they have already undergone the sentences as mentioned above i.e. Rajiv Duggal has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for more than 14 months and Vijay Kumar has already undergone more than 13 months of sentence of imprisonment upto 8.8.2014, the date on which their sentences of imprisonment have been suspended by this Court. They are suffering the agony of long criminal trial for the last more than 10 years since the registration of the FIR. The petitioners have been sentenced to undergo sentence for maximum period of two years each. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and as argued by learned State counsel, the petitioners have already undergone sentence of more than fourteen and thirteen months respectively and at present their sentences have been suspended and they have been released on bail vide order passed by this Court on 8.8.2014. The petitioners have already undergone substantial period of sentence. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners earlier committed any offence.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present cases, I accept these revision petitions partly regarding the modification of HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.18 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision Nos.3631 of 2013 etc. [7] the sentence of imprisonment and the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone. However, the sentence of fine and in default of payment of fine shall remain the same. Since the petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds/surety bonds stand discharged. November 25, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.18 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh