AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 15.05.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.01.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar has been dismissed.
The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 28.10.2003. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 08.01.2007 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. The appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed on 15.05.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar. The instant revision petition was filed on 23.05.2007 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of almost 23 years from the date of registration of the FIR.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Surinder Kumar got recorded his stated on 28.10.2003 to the effect that an amount of Rs.46,000/- had been stolen from his office. Based on the said statement, the FIR came to be registered and during the course of the investigation, the petitioner-Arshad Alam was nominated as an accused.
On presentation of the challan, charges were framed under Section 411 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed Trial. The prosecution examined PW-1/Surinder Kumar (complainant), PW-2/HC Balwinder and PW-3/Lavleen Kumar. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-petitioner (hereinafter known as 'the petitioner') was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated.
Based on the evidence led, the petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced vide a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.01.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, as under:-
| Offence under Section | Sentence RI/SI | Fine | RI/SI in default of payment of fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| 411 IPC | SI for one and a half year | -- | -- |
The petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar vide judgment dated 15.05.2007.
The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present petition.
The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The recovery of Rs.31,000/- has been foisted upon him. No independent witness has been examined. In fact, the impugned judgments of conviction have been recorded on the basis of conjectures and surmises. She lastly contends that, in case, this Court was not inclined to acquit the petitioner, then, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him (03 months and 30 days [including remission]) as he is a first-time offender.
The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the allegations against the petitioner which have fructified into a judgment of conviction, which has been upheld by the Lower Appellate Court do not entitle the petitioner to any leniency. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the evidence on record would establish beyond doubt that the recovery of Rs.31,000/- out of the stolen amount of Rs.46,000/- was effected from the petitioner for which he has no explanation. He has not been able to establish any enmity with the investigating agency. As such, no fault can be found with the judgments of the Trial Court or the Lower Appellate Court dated 08.01.2007 and 15.05.2007 respectively.
In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.
As regards the imposition of sentence, it is pertinent to mention here that the occurrence took place on 28.10.2003 and the matter has come up for hearing now i.e. after more than 23 years. The custody certificate dated 03.08.2026 of the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner is not an accused in any other case. He has undergone almost 04 months [including remission] of his substantive sentence. Therefore, while upholding his conviction, I deem it appropriate to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him (03 months 30 days including remission).
The present revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms alongwith the pending applications, if any.