Chander Mohan vs State of Punjab

Daya Chaudhary, J.

Criminal Misc. No. 63726 of 2012

The present revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been filed after a delay of 921 days. Notice in the application was issued but inspite of giving various opportunities, no reply of the application has been filed. As per the grounds mentioned in the application, delay of 921 days in filing this revision is condoned.

Application is allowed.

Criminal Revision No. 2902 of 2011

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 17.01.2002 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, vide which, the petitioner has been convicted u/s 6 of the East Punjab Control Bricks Supplies Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act'') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days as well as judgment dated 16.02.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which, the conviction as well as sentence has been upheld.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to contest the conviction and in case, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, he would like to contest the sentence part only as he has already undergone more than 5 months of sentence against total sentence of one year. Learned counsel also submits that the case of the petitioner is at par with his co-accused-Harbans Kaur, who has been released on probation.

Learned State counsel submits that the co-accused of the petitioner was released on probation keeping in view her age i.e., more than 58 years and the fact that she is female, so, the petitioner cannot claim parity with his co-accused.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as well as the order passed by the Appellate Court. The case of the petitioner as made by the prosecution is that the petitioner was the member of a Society known as The Hoshiarpur Brick Kiln Gram Udyog Samiti, Village Bassi Kajjan and he was found running the brick kiln without possessing the requisite licence. On checking, it was found that the application for renewal of the licence was dismissed on 26.07.1994 and licence was not renewed w.e.f. 31.03.1993 but still the brick kiln was working without having any valid licence.

The petitioner has filed present revision against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by claiming the parity with his co-accused, namely, Harbans Kaur, who has been released on probation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his prayer qua to quantum of sentence only as the petitioner has already undergone more than 5 months of sentence against total sentence of one year on the ground that the petitioner is facing the agony of trial since 1996 and his co-accused-Harbans Kaur has been released on probation.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone more than 5 months of sentence against the total sentence of one year, the fact that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial since 1996, and that he is the first offender as no other case is pending against him and moreover the petitioner has not contested his conviction and has restricted his argument qua to quantum of sentence only, conviction of the petitioner u/s 6 of the Act is upheld and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The revision petition is dismissed with modification in sentence only.