Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasveet Singh Alias Jassi vs State Of Punjab on 5 January, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:166158
CRR No.2370 of 2023 (O&M) 1
2023:PHHC:166158
312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on 6th of November, 2023
Pronounced on 5th of January, 2024
CRR No.2370 of 2023 (O&M)
Jasveer Singh @ Jassi .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. M.S. Uppal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunal Vinayak, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab.
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Petitioner is a convict for offence punishable under Section 474 IPC.
2. Petitioner was booked in FIR No.08, dated 3rd of February, 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 380, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, at Police Station City Mansa. The complainant alleges that amount was being withdrawn from his bank account by an unknown person on account of e-shopping. Petitioner along with one Gursewak Singh were challaned. They were charged for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 06-01-2024 01:00:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:166158 CRR No.2370 of 2023 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:166158 with Section 120-B IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000.
3. Trial Court after analyzing the whole evidence that has come on record held the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 474 IPC and sentenced him as under :
Offence Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment 474 IPC 2 years RI Rs.1000/- 10 days S.I.
4. The conviction stands maintained in appeal preferred by the petitioner.
5. Contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was tried for major offences and has been convicted under Section 474 IPC and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is on higher side. Petitioner is a young person. He is the first time offender. He is only breadwinner of his family comprising his old parents and thus deserves a lenient view.
6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner in the considered opinion of this Court the Charge for offence punishable under Section 474 IPC stands proved against the petitioner and there is no glaring error of law that can call for interference in the findings recorded by the Courts below.
7. Keeping in view the provisions contained under Section 222 of Criminal Procedure Code, it cannot be held that the petitioner 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 06-01-2024 01:00:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:166158 CRR No.2370 of 2023 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:166158 was prejudiced for having tried for offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act, and convicted for offence punishable under Section 474 IPC.
8. However, keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is first time offender, the instant revision is partly accepted to the extent that the petitioner is extended benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his furnishing bond in a sum of Rs.25000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of 1 year. He shall continue to maintain good behaviour and keep peace for the said period. In case there is breach of any condition of the bond he shall serve the remaining sentence.
9. With the aforesaid modification, the present revision petition is disposed off.
January 05, 2024 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:166158 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 06-01-2024 01:00:59 :::