PREM CHAND Vs. STATE (U.T.) CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREM Chand revision petitioner was found on 27-2-1982 by Parvesh Kumar, biding behind the drum of grease, in the workshop of Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh. At about 1.00 p.m., Parvesh Kumar, Chief Store Keeper of the workshop and Puran Singh were working in the store room of the workshop. When Parvesh Kumar came out of the store in connection with some work, he noticed the petitioner, as stated above. The petitioner was perplexed and, was apprehended by Parvesh Kumar. Both Parvesh Kumar and Puran Singh searched the person of the petitioner and from his left and right pockets, two bearings each were recovered. Thereafter the said store was checked and 35 other bearings were found to be missing. The petitioner was taken to police station and handed over to ASI Mani Ram (PW3) who recorded the statement of Parvesh Kumar Ex. PC. On the basis of the endorsement made on it, First Information Report was registered.

(2.) DURING interrogation, the petitioner made disclosure statement Ex. PE on 3-3-1982 which led to the recovery of 10 bearings which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex P.H. After completion of investigation. report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was put in Court. After framing the charge, the prosecution examined Puran Singh (PWI), Parvesh Kumar (PW2), ASI Mani Ram (PW 3), P.B. Parkash (PW 4) and Tarlok Nath (PW 5), Ram Gopal was given up as unnecessary and the prosecution case was closed. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the petitioner denied the allegations of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent. In his defence Surja Ram (DWI) was examined. After hearing the parties, the trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of sentencing him, the Court found it expedient to release him on probation and he was directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the effect that he would appear to receive the sentence as and when called upon within a period of one year and in the meantime, he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. He was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 300/- of the proceedings. The appeal preferred by him was declined and the probation was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

(3.) THE learned State counsel has argued that the prosecution witnesses have not been proved to be inimical towards the petitioner and they have supported the prosecution. There is no reason to disturb the findings in revision.