KASHMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 22.02.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner -convict against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.08.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate II Class, Hoshiarpur vide which the petitioner alongwith his co -accused Kuldip Singh @ Deepa has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that Pargat Singh being Secretary of Gondpur Agricultural Sewa Society had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 1 lac from the account of society on 06.11.2001 from Hoshiarpur Central Co -operative Bank branch Barian Kalan. On the next day i.e. 07.11.2011 at about 10.00 AM he left his house alongwith the bag containing the said amount on his scooter towards Gondpur via Mahilpur. He had kept the said bag containing the money in the basket of his scooter. When he reached Mahilpur, petitioner alongwith co -accused Kuldip Singh alias Deepa met the complainant. They were also on their scooter 'without number'. Co -accused Kuldip Singh had some talk with complainant Pargat Singh. However, complainant asked him that he would talk him later on as he was carrying money and had to deliver the same to the borrowers of the society. He parked his scooter on the road and started urinating. However, he observed that scooter was started and that bag containing money of Rs. 1 lac was taken away by petitioner -convict alongwith his co -accused Kuldip and both of them escaped on their scooter. Complainant followed them but in vain.

(2.) FIR was lodged. During investigation, petitioner -convict Kashmir Singh was arrested on 19.12.2001 and an amount of Rs. 60,000 alongwith the bag was recovered from his possession. Co -accused Kuldip Singh was arrested on 4.2.2001. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') was filed against the petitioner -convict and his co -accused. They faced trial. They were convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court as aforementioned. Appeal filed by the petitioner -convict against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned appellate Court. However, no appeal was filed by co -accused Kuldip Singh.

(3.) I have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned Courts below. Same are based on evidence. There is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned appellate Court.