CRR No.3568 of 2016 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRR No.3568 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision: 18.03.2017

Baljinder Singh
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present: Mr. Rituraj Singh, Advocate
for Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
for the complainant.

REKHA MITTAL J.

Baljinder Singh son of Isher Singh faced trial for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the

Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) in FIR No.86 dated 07.07.2009

registered at Police Station Sadar, Malout.

The learned trial Court on 21.12.2015 convicted and

sentenced the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under

Section 406 IPC and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 02 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-.

The petitioner filed an appeal but remained unsuccessful.

Conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offence under Section 406

IPC was affirmed with slight modification that he was directed to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days in default of payment of

fine.

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2017 13:33:41 :::
CRR No.3568 of 2016 (OM) 2

On 29.11.2016, notice was issued on the question of

quantum of sentence.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner

has already suffered custody for a period of about 08 months who

otherwise faced the criminal proceedings for the past about 08 years.

The petitioner is ready to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to

the complainant. He prays that substantive sentence may be reduced to

the period already undergone.

Counsel for the State assisted by counsel for the

complainant has seriously opposed the prayer for reduction in sentence.

However, counsel for the complainant would submit that the petitioner

is liable to compensate the complainant as he is guilty of mis-

appropriating articles of Istridhan belonging to her.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and persued the

paperbook.

Concededly, the petitioner is behind the bars for the past

about 08 months. Keeping the petitioner behind the bars for a period of

02 years to complete the sentence may not serve any useful purpose as

his wife who has suffered is required to be compensated.

Taking into consideration totality of the facts and

circumstances obtaining in the case, it is ordered that sentence of the

petitioner shall be reduced to imprisonment for a period of 11 months

provided he deposits an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the Court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar Sahib, within a period of one month.

In case the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is not deposited within the

stipulated period, no benefit of reduction of sentence shall accrue in

2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2017 13:33:42 :::
CRR No.3568 of 2016 (OM) 3

favour of the petitioner. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, if any, deposited

by the petitioner shall be disbursed to the complainant – wife by Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar Sahib.

With modification in the aforesaid terms, the instant

petition stands disposed of.

                                                   (REKHA MITTAL)
                                                       JUDGE
18.03.2017
yakub

             Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:                     Yes/No




                                3 of 3
             ::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2017 13:33:42 :::