Judgment:
Crl. Revision No.3872 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.3872 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 09, 2014 Gurdeep Singh ...Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. No Present: Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gazi Mohd., Addl. A.G. Punjab. ***** ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. The present revision petition was admitted as the petitioner has restricted his prayer only to the quantum of sentence. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years under Section 379 IPC by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana vide its order dated 05.01.2012 in FIR No.186 dated 08.06.2009, registered at Police Station Samana.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Patiala modified the order of sentence while maintaining the conviction and reduced the punishment to 02 years.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as Sunil the counsel for the State. 2014.05.14 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No.3872 of 2013 (O&M) -2- 4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already undergone 01 year and 16 days of imprisonment and he is young and has a family to support and being a first offender, benefit of probation should have been allowed. It was urged that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence awarded to him under the NDPS Act.
5. The counsel appearing for the State submits that the benefit of probation would not be available to the petitioner as he had been convicted in another case and the trial Court as well as the appellate Court had convicted him finding him guilty of snatching a gold chain from the neck of a lady who had gone to the temple. It was urged that the recovery was effected from the petitioner.
6. I have considered the submissions. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court had recorded a finding of guilty. The trial Court had sentenced the petitioner to 03 years rigorous imprisonment which on appeal was reduced to 02 years. The petitioner has already suffered incarceration for the last 01 year and 16 days.
7. Considering the entire circumstances and the age of the petitioner, the interest of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. With this modification alone, the revision petition stands disposed of. The petitioner be released if not required in any other case forthwith. (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE May 09, 2014 Sunil 2014.05.14 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No.3872 of 2013 (O&M) -3- sunil Sunil 2014.05.14 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document