Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar Alias Rinku vs State Of Punjab on 1 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043626
126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRR-839-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.04.2025
RAKESH KUMAR ALIAS RINKU ...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present revision is preferred against the judgment dated
03.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide
which the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.08.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, in
case bearing FIR No.37 dated 19.03.2012 under Sections
419/420/465/468/471 of IPC, have been upheld. The petitioner was sentenced
as under:
Offence Section Section 419/120-B of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of which simple Imprisonment for 01
month.
Section 420/120-B of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of which simple Imprisonment for 01
month.
Section 465/120-B of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and a fine of
Rs.250/-, in default of which simple Imprisonment for 07
days.
Section 467/120-B of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of which simple Imprisonment for 01
month.
Section 468/120-B of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of which simple Imprisonment for 01
month.
Section 471/120-B of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and a fine of
Rs.250/-, in default of which simple Imprisonment for 07
days.
It was ordered that all sentences shall run concurrently.
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 03:23:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043626
CRR-839-2025 (O&M) -2-
2. The FIR (supra) was registered on the written complaint of Sh.
Gurbir Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, to SSP, Bathinda for
taking action against accused for impersonation by some person as Amandeep
Kumar as surety for Arjun Singh in case bearing FIR No.555 dated
16.12.2010 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. It is further alleged that in the
above mentioned case, Arjun Singh, was ordered to be released on bail by
learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda under the NDPS Act on furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Area/Duty Magistrate. Thereafter, one, Amandeep
Kumar furnished surety bond which was attested by Anil Kumar son of
Bishan Dass, and the same was furnished before the CJM, Bathinda. Further,
on 27.05.2011, the accused-Arjun Singh, absented from the Court and his bail
was cancelled and notice to his surety, namely, Amandeep Kumar, was issued.
Amandeep Kumar along with his counsel appeared in the Court on
25.08.2011 and submitted that he did not stand surety for Arjun Singh and the
surety bond did not bear his signatures and the property attached with the
surety bond was already sold by him on 22.08.2005. All the documents
produced in the Court did not belong to him. Thus, some unknown person had
impersonated as Amandeep Kumar and on the basis of forged documents,
Arjun Singh was released on bail. Thereafter, the FIR (supra) got registered
and accused/petitioner-Anil Kumar was arrested and during investigation, it
has been revealed that co-accused-Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku(petitioner herein)
impersonated himself as Amandeep Kumar and he was arrested on
21.06.2014.
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 03:23:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043626
CRR-839-2025 (O&M) -3-
3. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial
Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 30.08.2018. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned lower
Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.02.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2025 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the
release of the petitioner on probation in view of his age and good conduct.
5. Learned State counsel does not object to the restricted prayer of the
petitioner, so long as the conviction of the petitioner is upheld.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after perusing
the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the
petitioner is 50 years of age and he has undergone the actual sentence of 03
months and 29 days out of total sentence of 02 years.
7. Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empowers
the Courts to release the convicts if deemed appropriate in view of
circumstances of the case. Similarly, Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C also
allows the Courts to release convicts on probation for good conduct in the
cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A two Judge Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has
held as under:-
“6….having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the
appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on
probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the
appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct…..”
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 03-04-2025 03:23:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043626
CRR-839-2025 (O&M) -4-
8. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhvir Singh Vs.
State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 speaking through Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, has held
as under:-
“6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act
explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the
benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of
sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the
reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant
members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail
life is what is sought to be subserved.”
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant
revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:
1) The judgment dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, confirming the conviction
of the petitioner is upheld.
2) The order of sentence dated 30.08.2018 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, is modified to the
extent of granting the concession of probation to the petitioner
for good conduct.
3) The petitioner shall be released on probation for good
conduct on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with a
surety for the same amount, after furnishing an undertaking to
keep the peace and good behaviour for the remaining period of
his sentence to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.
4) The petitioner shall remain under the supervision of the
concerned Probation Officer during the aforesaid period. If the
petitioner fails to comply with the said directions or commit
breach of the undertaking rendered by him, he shall be called
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 03-04-2025 03:23:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043626CRR-839-2025 (O&M) -5-
upon to undergo the sentence imposed upon them by the learned
trial Court.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
01.04.2025 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 03:23:43 :::
[ad_1]
Source link