Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh @ Jassa & Another vs State Of Punjab on 21 December, 2022
-1-
CRR-2697-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-2697-2017 (O & M)
Date of decision: 21.12.2022
Jasbir Singh @ Jassa and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurlal Singh Dhillon, AAG, Punjab.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated
07.07.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to the
extent of framing the charge under Section 413 IPC against the petitioners
in case FIR No.285 dated 01.10.2016, under Sections 379, 413 and 473
IPC, registered at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana.
The facts of the case, as noticed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, while passing the impugned order dated 07.07.2017, are as under:
"The perusal of file reveals that FIR in the present case
was registered on the basis of secret information received
by SI Avtar Singh that accused Joga Singh was habitual
of committing theft of trucks and trallas and he has
formed a gang of committing theft alongwith the other
accused Jagpreet Singh, Jasbir Singh and Major Singh
and they have stolen many trallas. They all carry stolen
tralls to the workshop of Major Singh and Jasbir Singh
1 of 5
CRR-2697-2017
where they change the colour of tralls and by affixing
fake number plates, sell it further and even today they are
on their way on Innova Car bearing No.PB-10-CL-8090.
Finding the information reliable, the case was registered.
The said persons were unable to bring the proof of
ownership of vehicle in which they were travelling.
Accused Major Singh then got a disclosure statement
recorded having concealed the doors of the trallas and
other articles. Similar statement of concealing of parts of
trallas was made by Joga Singh and Jagpreet Singh, who
pursuant to the disclosure statement got recovered the
part of bodies of trallas. Tralls was recovered from
Jasbir Singh."
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though FIR
No.246 dated 01.09.2016, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Focal
Point, Ludhiana, and FIR No.216 dated 17.09.2016, under Section 379 IPC,
Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana, have been registered against the
petitioners, yet the fact remains that the same are still pending trial. He
further contends that the trial Court has erred in law by framing the charge
against the petitioners under Section 413 IPC, even though he is not a
previous convict. He further contends that under the Punjab Habitual
Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952, a habitual offender means a
person, who has been convicted to imprisonment more than twice during
continuous period of five years. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel relies upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this
Court in CRA-D-125-DB-2015, titled as 'U.T. Chandigarh Vs. Manga',
decided on 31.03.2015.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as to
2 of 5
CRR-2697-2017
whether the petitioners are previous convicts or not, is a matter of trial and
at the threshold, they cannot be discharged under Section 413 IPC. He
further contends that the petitioners used to change the colour of stolen
vehicles and sell the same further by affixing fake number plates and that
the petitioners were arrested at the spot alongwith the stolen vehicle(s). As
such, the petitioners are habitual in dealing with the stolen property and,
therefore, framing of charge under Section 413 IPC is wholly justified.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Section 413 IPC would read as under:
"413. Habitually dealing in stolen property. - Whoever
habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or
has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine."
As per Clause (3) of Section 2 of the Punjab Habitual
Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952, 'habitual offender' means a
person (a) who, during any continuous period of five years, whether before
or after the commencement of the said Act, has been convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment more than twice on account of any one or more
of the offences mentioned in the Schedule to this Act committed on
different occasions and not constituting parts of the same transaction; and
(b) who has, as a result of such convictions suffered imprisonment(s) at
least for a total period of twelve months.
Vide order dated 05.02.2020 passed by this Court, learned
State counsel sought time to verify as to whether the petitioners had been
convicted in any other case prior to the framing of charge.
3 of 5
CRR-2697-2017
In compliance thereof, affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner
of Police, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana, was filed.
A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit would show that the
petitioners have not been convicted as yet in any case, and that apart from
the present case, FIR No.246 dated 01.09.2016, under Section 379 IPC,
Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, and FIR No.216 dated 17.09.2016,
under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana, have been
registered against them and the same are pending trial.
There is nothing on record to prove that the petitioners have
been convicted in connection with their dealing in stolen property.
The Division Bench of this Court in Manga (supra) has held as
under:
"Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to deny
that there is no evidence on record to prove that
respondent-accused was convicted in seven cases in
connection with his dealings in stolen property. There is
not one judgment of conviction much less seven which has
been placed on record to show the commission of offence as
alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution relied upon
statement of PW1 Shiv Kumar to the effect that the accused
was convicted in seven cases. The said statement is not the
primary evidence, which is required to be adduced by the
prosecution in support of the charges against the accused.
Therefore, inordinate reliance on a verification report
(Ex.P1) proved by HC Shiv Kumar is misplaced and
uncalled for. Evidence of PW1 HC Shiv Kumar or that of
PW2 Amit Kumar son of Chaman Lal can be of no avail to
connect the respondent with the alleged offence."
4 of 5
CRR-2697-2017
In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that no prima
facie case under Section 413 IPC is made out against the petitioners.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 07.07.2017 is set aside to the
aforesaid extent only.
21.12.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
