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
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 :::