SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ram Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 March, 2018

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.219 OF 2018 :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
106
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.219 OF 2018
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 06, 2018

Ram Singh

…..Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

….Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

Present: Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

*****

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

This revision petition has been preferred, challenging the order

dated 17.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala,

vide which an appeal preferred by the petitioner as well as the State of

Punjab against the judgement dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Barnala, whereby the petitioner stood convicted under Section

406 IPC and sentenced for the period, for which he has already undergone,

stand allowed and the case was remanded for fresh trial.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the

learned trial Court, when no evidence was coming on behalf of the

prosecution despite various dates having been granted, proceeded to get

signatures of the petitioner on the blank papers and thereafter recorded the

confessional statement of the petitioner, consequently passing the impugned

order dated 14.03.2017, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under

1 of 3
11-03-2018 04:24:38 :::
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.219 OF 2018 :{ 2 }:

Section 406 IPC and senttencing him for the period already undergone

without the consent of the petitioner and in fact it is because of the said

reason that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide order dated

17.10.2017 had set-aside the said order. He contends that although the State

of Punjab had also preferred an appeal but the same should not have been

accepted for the simple reason that the challenge in the appeal was that the

period of sentence after conviction was meagre whereas the petitioner

deserved the higher sentence. The said appeal has also been accepted, which

should not have been in the light of the fact that the prosecution has failed

to produce any evidence on record, which would substantiate the allegation

against the petitioner, for which he has been charged sheeted and had been

facing trial for long. He, however, has categorically and very fairly admitted

that there is no order passed by the trial Court, closing the prosecution

evidence.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case

and on going through the order dated 17.10.2017, this Court does not find

any illegality in the same as the Court has proceeded to balance the equity

between the parties and has further proceeded to pass an order keeping in

view the position as it was expected of the trial Court to proceed and decide

the case on merits in the light of the fact that prosecution evidence was in

progress when the alleged confessional statement was given by the

petitioner, which has not been accepted by the appellate Court. The

appellate Court has rightly remanded the case back after setting-aside the

judgement dated 14.03.2017 passed by the trial Court and directing it to

commence the trial from the stage when the impugned order was passed i.e.

for examining the prosecution witnesses. It would be open to the petitioner

2 of 3
11-03-2018 04:24:39 :::
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.219 OF 2018 :{ 3 }:

to take all pleas before the trial Court in case he feels that ample

opportunities have been given to the prosecution to lead the evidence which

they had failed to avail.

Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands

dismissed.

March 06, 2018 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
khurmi JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
11-03-2018 04:24:39 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh