IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (206) Harikesh State of Haryana CORAM : Present:- Ramesh Chander Dimri 1. that on the intervening night of 28.05.2000 bearing registration No.HR 20B/1580 belonging to the complainant Rajender was stolen from the area of Police Station City Han theft led to registration of FIR No.152 dated 31.05.2000 under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Hansi. The said truck was subsequently recovered from custody of the petitioner and his co accordingly arrested in the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR Decided on: Versus Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Mr.C.R.Narwal, Advocate, for Mr.S.N.Pillania, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana. Ramesh Chander Dimri J. (Oral) : Allegations against the petitioner and his co that on the intervening night of 28.05.2000 bearing registration No.HR 20B/1580 belonging to the complainant Rajender was stolen from the area of Police Station City Han theft led to registration of FIR No.152 dated 31.05.2000 under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City The said truck was subsequently recovered from custody of the petitioner and his co-accused Joginder @ accordingly arrested in the said FIR and were tried for offences under IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R-1398-2009 Decided on: 06.07.2026 ……Petitioner ..…Respondent RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI C.R.Narwal, Advocate, for , Advocate, for the petitioner. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana. Allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused are that on the intervening night of 28.05.2000 and 29.05.2000, a truck bearing registration No.HR 20B/1580 belonging to the complainant Rajender was stolen from the area of Police Station City Hansi. Such theft led to registration of FIR No.152 dated 31.05.2000 under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City The said truck was subsequently recovered from custody of accused Joginder @ Jinda. They were FIR and were tried for offences under RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI are truck bearing registration No.HR 20B/1580 belonging to the complainant Such theft led to registration of FIR No.152 dated 31.05.2000 under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City The said truck was subsequently recovered from custody of They were FIR and were tried for offences under SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRR-1398-2009 -2- Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Their trial led to their conviction under Section 411 of the said Code and they were accordingly sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each under the said section. 2. They filed appeals against the said conviction and sentences. During the pendency of the said appeals, co-accused Joginder @ Jinda died. The said fact is recorded in the judgment passed by the Learned Appellate Court. The proceedings qua him, therefore, were dropped on 10.01.2007. His appeal was accordingly consigned to records. Appeal filed by the petitioner was however dismissed by the said Court on 12.07.2007. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed the present petition. It was admitted. His sentence was suspended by this Court on 15.12.2009. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the petition in question. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has instructions from the petitioner to make a statement at Bar that the petitioner does not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction but leniency may be shown to him in the matter of imposition of sentence. He also says that the truck allegedly stolen, as per the prosecution case itself, was recovered during investigation with the bags of wheat loaded in the same and therefore so far as material loss is concerned, it is almost negligible in the matter in question. SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRR-1398-2009 -3- 5. Learned State Counsel has opposed his prayer for showing leniency in the matter of imposition of sentence but fairly concedes that the stolen truck, as is evident from the impugned judgments of conviction, with the bags of wheat loaded in it, was recovered during investigation and therefore, no material loss appears to have been caused to the complainant except for the loss caused during the theft period. He has also filed custody certificate in respect of the petitioner showing that the petitioner has already undergone a substantive sentence of 1 year 4 months and 21 days. Through the impugned judgments and order, the petitioner was awarded the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at Bar that the petitioner does not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction on merits, the same are confirmed. However, a perusal of custody certificate filed today in the Court shows that there is no other criminal case lodged against the petitioner except the present one. He is stated to have already undergone a substantive sentence of 1 year 4 months and 21 days out of the total sentence of 3 years. A period of 26 years has elapsed since the date of occurrence. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the sentence already undergone by the petitioner in the case in SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRR-1398-2009 -4- question is a sufficient sentence to deter him to repeat the offences of the like nature. The truck in question, as is borne out of the record, was recovered by the investigating agency during investigation. At the time of such recovery, it contained wheat bags loaded in the same. In view thereof, I find the present case to be a fit one for reducing sentence imposed on the petitioner to the period already undergone. I order accordingly. 7. The present petition is partly allowed in the above-stated terms. All interim application/s, if any, stand disposed of. July 6th, 2026 (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) sailesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : No Whether Reportable : No SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left