Rajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 May, 2017

CRR No. 2874 of 2016 (OM) -1-

245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No. 2874 of 2016 (OM)
Date of Decision: 25.05.2017

Rajinder Singh
……Petitioner
Vs
State of Punjab and another
…..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, D.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2.

****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

CRM No.15481 of 2017:

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the

same is allowed. The case is taken up for rehearing today itself.

Application stands disposed of.

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 08-06-2017 21:07:13 :::
CRR No. 2874 of 2016 (OM) -2-

CRR No. 2874 of 2016:

This revision petition has been directed against the

judgment dated 05.07.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Patiala, vide which decision of the trial Court dated

03.11.2011 in the context of conviction and sentence was

upheld.

The revision petition was dismissed on the ground of

limitation vide order dated 05.09.2016 by this Court, against

which S.L.P. (Criminal) was preferred.

Order dated 05.09.2016, passed by the High Court

was set aside and the case was remanded for rehearing on the

ground that co-accused Sunil Kumar was successful in getting

the proceedings quashed on the basis of compromise after

making payment to MARKFED.

CRM No. 15481 of 2017 has been preferred by the

petitioner in compliance of order dated 01.05.2017, passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court and for acquittal of the petitioner in

READ  Sunil Singha-vs-State Of West Bengal on 1 December, 2006

the light of the payment having been made by the petitioner and

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 08-06-2017 21:07:14 :::
CRR No. 2874 of 2016 (OM) -3-

co-accused Sunil Kumar in the favour of complainant

MARKFED.

Vide order dated 19.05.2017, learned State counsel

was directed to inform the MARKFED in the context of

compromise and also to call a responsible person from the

Federation for today.

Today, Mr. Vinod Kumar, District Manager,

MARKFED, Patiala, has appeared in the Court along with Mr.

Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate.

Learned counsel for complainant- MARKFED, on

instructions from Vinod Kumar, admitted the factum of

compromise and receipt of entire payment from the petitioner

and co-accused Sunil Kumar.

Since the petitioner was convicted for an offence

under Section 406 I.P.C. and the offence is compoundable in

nature at the instance of the owner of the property, in respect of

which breach of trust has been committed, i.e. the MARKFED,

therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the revision petition

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 08-06-2017 21:07:14 :::
CRR No. 2874 of 2016 (OM) -4-

as compounded between the parties as a consequence of

aforesaid compromise.

Let the petitioner be released from custody forthwith.

The aforesaid composition of the offence shall have

the effect of an acquittal of the petitioner in terms of

Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C.

Disposed of.

May 25, 2017 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Apurva JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 08-06-2017 21:07:14 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *