Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Kumar Alias Kaka vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2009
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Revision. No.505 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:28.4.2009
Parveen Kumar alias Kaka
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
....
Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.2.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 6.12.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 292(2)(a) and 293 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 292(2)(a) IPC and also convicting and sentencing him for imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 293 IPC has been modified to the extent that the petitioner stands acquitted for the offence under Section 293 IPC, however, his conviction and sentence has been upheld for the offence under Section 292(2)(a) IPC.
The case of the prosecution is that ASI Balwinder Singh along with other Police officials was on patrol duty and present near Petrol Pump, Nathana on 2.7.2003. There Bhinder Jaitu met the Police party and he gave Cr. Rev. No.505 of 2009 [2] information that the petitioner was habitual on renting pirated VCDs and cassettes to general public representing them to be original. He used to play blue films and shows obscene objects to the general public. Thereby, he was misguiding the youths. If a raid was conducted, pirated and blue VCDs and cassettes could be recovered. Information being found reliable, a case was registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 292A and 293 IPC and Section 51 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. A raid was conducted as per the information that had been received. The Police party had reached on the bridge of canal near the gate of Government School when a person who had put a bag on Bajaj Chetak scooter was calling general public. The said person on seeing the Police party tried to escape, however, he was apprehended. The bag lying on the rear seat of the scooter was checked and CDs were found in that bag. After arranging a CD player, the recovered CDs were checked and 15 blue films CDs and 213 pirated CDs were recovered. The petitioner could not produce any permit or licence for these CDs. Accordingly, the matter was investigated and challan filed in the Court.
The petitioner was charge-sheeted for having committed the offences under Sections 420, 292A and 293 IPC. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The incriminating evidence appearing against him was put to him. It was stated by the petitioner that he was a student of 10th standard and was going from Bathinda to Bhucho Mandi to meet his maternal uncle. The Police was holding a `Naka' on the way and inquired about the documents of the scooter. He had no documents and an altercation took place between the Police. Due to the said reason, Cr. Rev. No.505 of 2009 [3] the Police had planted a false case upon him. In fact, nothing was recovered from him.
The learned trial Magistrate considered the fact whether the petitioner was found in possession of 13 duplicate VCDs and was selling the same as original and charging the price of selling the same as original. Besides, he was found in possession of 15 obscene VCDs for exhibiting the same to the children below the age of 18 years. On the basis of evidence and material on record, the learned trial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 293 and 292(2)(a) IPC. Accordingly, he was convicted for both these offences to rigorous imprisonment for one year each and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda who acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 293 IPC, however, his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 292(2)(a) IPC was upheld and his appeal qua the said conviction and sentence has been dismissed. The petitioner aggrieved against the same has filed the present revision petition.
Leaned counsel for the petitioner has after arguing the revision petition for some time confined his arguments only to the plea of probation. It is submitted that the petitioner is a young student aged 20-23 years and he was studying in 10th class at the time of the incident. Therefore, keeping in view the young age, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of probation in view of the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C.
In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Cr. Rev. No.505 of 2009 [4] offences for which the petitioner has been convicted are quite serious and affect the youngsters at large, therefore, he is not liable to be released on probation and the sentence as awarded would meet the ends of justice.
The affidavit of Kaur Singh, officiating Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda regarding the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that in terms of the affidavit of Kaur Singh, officiating Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, the petitioner as on 7.3.2009 has undergone four months and 28 days of sentence. As on date, he has completed about six months of sentence out of the sentence of one year that has been imposed. Besides, as per the said affidavit the petitioner has not been convicted in any other case nor any case is pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the fine has been deposited.
Keeping in view the young age of the petitioner and also the fact that there are chances that he would improve in future, it would be just and expedient that he is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Besides, the fine already deposited be treated as costs of the proceedings.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 292(2)(a) IPC as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda is upheld and maintained. However, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released Cr. Rev. No.505 of 2009 [5] on probation for a period of one year on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount undertaking to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so and during the said period to maintain peace and be of good behaviour. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking that he shall not commit such an offence.
With the modification of sentence, the revisions petition stands disposed of.
April 28, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*