A.S.NEHRA,J - (1.) PETITIONER was convicted under Section 354 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months on February 6, 1986 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and the judgment passed by the Magistrate was set aside and the case was sent back to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on August 5, 1986. Hence the criminal revision.
(2.) FACTS of the case are that on October 6, 1983 Surjit Singh made the statement that they are six brothers. His elder brother Amarjit Singh is residing in a separate house which adjoins their house. On October 5, 1983, at about 11.45 p.m. his sister-in-law Mohinder Kaur raised hue and cry that one person namely Kaur Singh had entered their house. Surjit Singh alongwith his brother Lacchman Singh went to the house of Amarjit Singh where Kaur Singh and his nephew Karam Singh were standing in the Court yard. Karam Singh had entered the house with bad intention Surjit Singh left Kaur Singh in the custody of Karam Singh, Lachhman Singh and Mohinder Kaur and went to the Police Station to lodge the report. On his statement the case was registered against the accused under Section 456 IPC. P-2 in support of the case prosecution examined PW-1, Surjit Singh, PW-2 Mohinder Kaur, PW-3 Karam Singh and PW-4 Gurbachan Singh. After the close of the prosecution evidence accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and stated that Amarjit Singh was his friend and he used to cultivate his land and ornaments of Amarjit Singh were laying with him in his custody. But his wife, brothers and son tried to create differences between the accused and Amarjit Singh but they could not succeed and than in the absence of Amarjit Singh in connivance with the police the false case has been planted upon him. Gulzar Singh DW-1 appeared in his defence.
(3.) MR . T.P.S. Mann, counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner was registered on October 6, 1983 and the trial Court decided the same against the petitioner on February 6, 1986. Since 1986 this revision petition is pending in this court, therefore, it is not a fit case in which re-trial ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is allowed to be held. In support of his argument he has relied upon Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Om Parkash, 1969, PLR, 793 and Municipal Amritsar v. Labhu Ram and others, 1970 Criminal Law Journal, 553.;