Sandeep Sood v. State of Punjab Etc

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, has been allowed and they have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that one FIR No.61 dated 20.03.1998 was registered under Sections 447, 457, 380, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Division No.6, Ludhiana, on the complaint of appellant-Sandeep Sood, who stated that he had taken on rent some part of property bearing No.432, Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana, from one Gurdev Kaur wife of Karnail Singh @ Rs.2000/- per month and he started the firm namely, Maha Luxmi Tools Manufacturers and he had installed ten

new and three old machines therein. As per the complaint, Anil Sood and Sunil Sood, who are the real brother, met the complainant in the month of January and February and asked him to start a partnership business with them; however, he did not agree to it. As per the complainant, on

04.03.1998, he got status quo order from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, restraining Anil Sood and Sunil Sood, for not to interfere in his business. It was alleged that on 19.03.1998, at around 8:30 p.m., the complainant had gone to his house after locking his factory premises, and on 20.03.1998, at 9:00 a.m., when he went to his factory, he saw that the locks of the factory were missing and the locks were changed. When the complainant enquired for the same from Anil Sood and Sunil Sood, then they told him that the factory belongs to them. It is alleged that he came to know that the machines installed in his factory were stolen by Anil Sood, Sunil Sood, Balwinder Singh and Surinder Singh and the locks were broken by said persons. Accordingly, the afore-said FIR was registered.

3.

Upon completion of the investigation, challan was presented in Court and on finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charge-sheeted under Sections 120-B, 380, 457, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which, the accused pleaded guilty and claimed trial.

4.

The prosecution, in support of their case, examined the following witnesses :-

¶1PW-1 Kashmira Singh

¶2PW-2 Paramjit Singh

¶3PW-3 Harbans Singh

¶4PW-4 Sandeep Sood (complainant)

¶5PW-5 ASI Avtar Singh

6. PW-6

¶7PW-7 Krishan Kumar Sood

¶8PW-8 Sukhwinder Singh

¶9PW-9 Harmail Singh

5.

After the closure of evidence by the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against them was put to them and they denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence by stating false implication in this case.

The accused examined the following witnesses :-

1. DW-1

Gurdeep Singh

2. DW-2

Anil Sood

3. DW-3

Sukhwinder Singh

4. DW-4

Mohinderpal

5. DW-5

Harminder Singh

6. DW-6

Surinder Singh

6.

Learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 23.12.2009,after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused only for offence under Section 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and also vide separate order of sentence of even date i.e. 23.12.2009, sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and fined Rs.3,000/- each. It was further ordered that in default thereof, the convicts shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The trial Court, while convicting the accused, has held as under :- "39. From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and the evidence of the accused being unreliable as discussed above, the ownership of the machines in favour of the complainant stands proved. It also stands proved that complainant had taken part of tenancy of plot no.432, Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana

from Gurdev Kaur. However, prosecution has not examined any witness who has witnessed the theft being committed by the accused at the night time which was necessary to prove the ingredients of section 380/457/120-B IPC. The recovery of the machines has been effected on the basis of statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of the accused which are very much relevant and admissible. The stands taken by the accused as discussed above does not sound to be reliable. Although, accused were charged sheeted under section 120B/380/457/506 of the IPC. However, as per section 221(2) and 222(2) Cr.P.C as the offence under section 411 IPC is punishable with lesser punishment, there is no need for amendment of charge. From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and in view of the presumption as envisaged under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and accused having failed to initiating any action against the complainant or the police official if they have allegedly taken away their property, the ingredients of section 411 IPC read with section 34 IPC are fulfilled and accordingly all the ingredients of section 411 IPC read with 34 IPC stands proved against all the accused and as such all the accused namely Surinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Anil Sood and Sunil Sood are convicted under Section 411 read with Section 34 of the IPC only. Let the convicts be heard on the question of sentence."

7.

Being aggrieved against the afore-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2009, respondents No.2 to 5-convicts preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana; which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 01.06.2012 and respondents No.2 to 5, were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶8The complainant has now filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment dated 01.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

¶9Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned lower Court has erred in law and facts in allowing the appeal filed by respondents No.2 to 5, by ignoring the evidence available on the record. It is submitted that the order passed by the trial Court was well reasoned and justified and accordingly, no interference was required to be made. Accordingly, it is prayed that the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court may be set aside and that of the trial Court may be restored.

¶10On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2, 4 and 5 (respondent No.3 is stated to have expired, as has been recorded in order dated 12.12.2014, passed by this Court), has supported the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court by submitting that the learned trial Court had erred in convicting respondents No.2 to 5 under Section 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, without there being any sufficient evidence/material available on the record. It is submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the lower Appellate Court, is well reasoned, justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the present appeal has been made.

¶11I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-complainant and gone through the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and also the case file.

12.o o AoperusaloofotheojudgmentopassedobyotheolearnedotrialoCourto wouldo showo thato respondentso No.2o too 5,o wereo althougho charge-sheetedo undero ectionso12!-",o#$!,o%5&,o5!'oofotheo(ndiano)enaloCode*ohowe+er,o theyowereocon+ictedoonlyoundero ectiono%11oreadowitho ectiono#%oofotheo IndianoPenaloCode.oAsoperotheolearnedotrialoCourt,otheoprosecutionohadonoto examinedoanyowitness,owhoohadowitnessedotheotheftobeingocommittedobyo respondentsoNo.2otoo5,oatotheonightotime,owhichowasonecessaryotooproveotheo ingredientsoofoSectionso380,o457,o120-BoofotheoIndianoPenaloCode.oo

13.o o Further,olearnedoloweroAppellateoCourtohasore-appreciatedotheo entireo evidenceo availableo ono theo fileo ando haso returnedo theo followingoooooooo findingso:-o o o"16.o Afterogoingothroughotheoevidenceoledobyotheo prosecution,o Io amo ofo theo consideredo opiniono thato prosecutiono haso failedo too proveo theo aboveo saido ingredientsotooestablishotheooffenceoU/so411oIPC.oEveno ifoforotheosakeoofoargumentsoitoisoassumedothatotheocaseo propertyo i.e.o theo machineso wereo recoveredo fromo theo possessiono ofo theo accusedo ono theo basiso ofo theiro disclosureostatementou/so27oofoIndianoEvidenceoAct,obuto theomereopossessionobyotheoaccusedowillonotogiveoriseotoo theo inferenceo thato theyo wereo theo receivero ofo stoleno property.oNooinferenceocanobeodrawnoinotheoabsenceoofo anyoproofothatopropertyoinopossessionoofoaccusedohado earlierobeenostolen.oProsecutionowasorequiredotooleado cogento ando convincingo evidenceo too proveo thato theo propertyoallegedotoobeorecoveredofromotheoaccusedohado earliero beeno stolen.o Ito iso allegedo byo theo complainanto thatoheoisotheoowneroofo13omachinesooutoofowhicho10o wereonewoandothreeowereooldoandothatoheohadokeptothoseo machinesoinotheotenantedopremisesoofotheocomplainanto bearingoplotoNo.432,oIndustrialoAreaoA,oLudhiana.oTheo saido ploto waso takeno ono rento byo theo complainantoo SandeepoSoodofromoPW-6oGurdevoKaurowifeoofoKarnailo Singhoandothatocomplainantowasorunningohisofactoryoino theosaidoplotoinotheonameoandostyleoofoMahaoLuxmioToolo Manufacturersobeingotheoproprietoroofotheosame.o o 17.o Thus,otheoquestionowhichoisorequiredotoobeo seenoinothisocaseoisowhetherocomplainantoSandeepoSoodo haso beeno ableo too proveo ono recordo thato theo allegedo machinesowereokeptonohisofactory,ohiredobyohim,oatoploto No.432oIndustrialoAreaoB,oLudhianaoandothatowhetheroito wasocomplainantowhoowasorunningotheosaidofactoryoino theonameoandostyleoofoMahaoLuxmioTooloManufacturerso ando thato whethero heo hado purchasedo thoseo machineso fromodifferentopurchasers.oForothis,otheomostorelevanto testimonyo iso ofo PW-6o Gurdevo Kauro fromo whomo complainantoSandeepoSoodoallegesotoohaveotakenotheo premisesoonorent.PW-6oGurdevoKaurohasocategoricallyo deposedoinoheroexaminationoinochiefothatosheohadogiveno theoplotoNo.432oIndustrialoAreaoBoonorentotootheowifeoofo accusedoAniloKumaroandotooSuniloSoodo@oRs.4000/-opero month.o Thiso witnesso haso supportedo theo caseo ofo theo accusedo ando haso noto deposedo ino favouro ofo theo prosecution.oThisowitnessowasoneverodeclaredohostileobyo theo prosecutiono meaningo therebyo prosecutiono relieso uponotheotestimonyoofothisowitness.oLearnedolowerocourto erredo ino holdingo thato theo evidenceo ofo PW-6oooooooooooooooooo GurdevoKaurocannotobeoreadoagainstotheocomplainanto aso sheo iso theo mothero ofo twoo ofo theo accusedo namelyooooooooooooooooooooo Balwindero Singho ando Surindero Singh.o Prosecutiono knowingo thiso facto examinedo PW-6o Gurdevo Kauro aso prosecutionowitnessoandowhenosheodidonotosupportotheo caseoofotheoprosecution,oprosecutionodidonotobotherotoo getoherodeclaredohostile.oDuringoherocross-examinationo sheohasocategoricallyodeposedothatothisoplotowasonevero givenoonorentotoocomplainantoSandeepoSood,oratheroaso perotheoagreementoEx.oDCosheoisoreceivingorentofromo theoaccusedopersons.oTheoprosecutionofailsotooestablisho ono theo recordo thato theo premiseso fromo whicho theo machineso wereo allegedo too beo stoleno wereo evero ino possessiono ofo complainanto Sandeepo Soodo facedo witho thiso situation,o ito cannoto beo saido thato machineso wereo stolenofromotheopossessionoofoSandeepoSood.oo o 18.o Regardingotheoownershipoofotheomachines,o theocross-examinationoofoPW-2,oPW-3,oPW-4oandoPW-8o isoquireorelevant.oPW-2oParamjitoSinghohasodeposedoino hisoexaminationoinochiefothatoinotheoyearo1997-98oheo soldooneoLatheomachineotootheoowneroofoMahaoLuxmio Toolo Manufacturerso namelyo Sanjeeto Soodo video billo No.154o datedo 24.1.98.o Heo haso provedo ono recordo theo photocopyoofotheobilloasoEx.PC.oLearnedoAPPoforotheo Stateo relyingo upono theo testimonyo ofo thiso witnesso haso triedotooproveoonorecordothatobilloEx.PCoshowsothatooneo latheo machineo recoveredo fromo theo possessiono ofo theo accusedo waso infacto ownedo byo complainanto Sandeepo Sood.oItoisorelevantotoomentionohereothatoalthoughothiso witnessohasodeposedoinohisoexaminationoinochiefothatoheo soldooneoLatheoMachineotootheoowneroofoMahaoLuxmio TooloManufacturersobutothereoisonothingoonotheorecordo too showo thato complainanto Sandeepo Soodo iso theo proprietoroofoMahaoLuxmioTooloManufacturers.oEvenoifo forotheosakeoofoarguments,oitoisoassumedothatoPW-2ohado soleo anyo Latheo Machineo too Mahao Luxmio Toolo Manufacturers,oitonoowhereoprovesothatoSandeepoSoodo complainanto hado purchasedo theo saido machineo beingo proprietoro ofo aboveo saido manufacturers.o Thiso iso particularlyosoowhenoPW-4ooSandeepoSoodohasorepliedo inohisocross-examinationothatoheohadonoodocumentaryo prooforegardingohisoproprietorshipoofoMahaLuxmioToolo Manufacturersoandothatoheodidonotofurnishoanyoproofotoo theo policeo regardingo hiso beingo proprietoro ofo MahaLuxmio Toolso Manufacturers.o Eveno perusalo ofo Ex.PCo wouldo revealo thato nameo ofo theo proprietoro ofo Mahao Luxmio Toolo Manufacturerso iso noo whereo mentioned.oEvenotheooriginaloofoBilloofoEx.PCohasonoto comeoonotheorecord.oThus,othisodocumentoisoofonoohelpo too theo prosecutiono aso ito noo whereo showso thatoGURPREET KAUR complainanto Sandeepo Soodo purchasedo oneo Latheo MachineofromoPW-2.oNotoonlyothis,otheoallegedoLatheo Machineo purchasedo byo complainanto waso nevero producedoinotheotestimonyoofoPW-2oParamjitoSingh.oHeo haso repliedo ino theo cross-examinationo thato heo cannoto seenoanyomachineoinotheocourt.o o 19.o Nexto comeso theo testimonyo ofo PW-3oooooooooooooooooooooo HarbansoSingh.oAgainothisowitnessoisosilentoregardingo theonameoofotheopersonotoowhomoheoallegesotoohaveosoldo oneomillingomachine.oHeohasomerelyoprovedoonorecordo theo photocopyo ofo theo receipto aso Ex.PW-3/Ao ando haso triedo too proveo ono recordo thato video thiso receipto heo receivedo Rs.27,000/-o fromo M/so Mahao Luxmio Toolo Manufacturersoforosellingooneomillingomachine.oAgaino theo nameo ofo theo proprietoro iso noto mentionedo ono thiso receipt/billoEx.PW3/A.oAsoalreadyostatedoaboveothereoiso nothingo ono theo recordo too showo thato complainanto Sandeepo Soodo iso theo proprietoro ofo M/so Mahao Luxmio TooloManufacturers,otherefore,othisodocumentonoowhereo leadsotootheoinferenceothatocomplainantoSandeepoSoodo purchasedo theo millingo machineo fromo PW-3o moreo so,o wheno theo saido machineo waso noto producedo ino theo testimonyoofoPW-3oandoheohasoevenofailedotooidentifyotheo signatureso ono theo invoiceo Ex.PW3/A.o Thus,o theo testimonyoofothisowitnessoalsoodoesonotoadvanceotheocaseo ofoprosecution.o o 20.o Nexto comeso theo testimonyo ofo PW-8o SukhjinderoSingh.oHeohasotriedotooproveoonorecordotheo billoNo.57oasoMarkoAovideowhichoheoallegesotoohaveosoldo 7o machineso too M/so Mahao Luxmio TooloManufacturerso andobilloNo.59omarkoBovideowhichoheoallegesotoohaveo soldo threeo machineso too Luxmio Toolso ando billo No.63o MarkoCovideowhichoheoallegesotoohaveosoldooneomachineo tooMahaoLuxmioTooloManufacturers.oItoisorelevantotoo mentionohereothatoallotheoaboveosaidobillsohaveobeeno markedoandonotoprovedoasoperolaw.oTheowitnessoadmitsoGURPREET KAUR ino theo examinationo ino chiefo itselfo thato heo haso noto broughtotheooriginalorecordoofotheoaboveosaidobills.oIno hisocross-examinationoheohasoadmittedoitoasocorrectothato inotheo aboveo saido markedo Billso Ao too C,otheonameo ofo SandeepoSoodoisonoowhereomentionedoandothatoheodoeso notoknowoSandeepoSoodoandothatoheohasonotoseenoanyoofo theoaboveosaidomachinesoinotheocourt.oHeohasogoneotoo theoextentoofoadmittingothatoearlierowhenoheocameotoo deposeoinotheocourtoheosawosomeoofotheomachinesolyingo outsideobutothereowasonoosuchomachineowhichowasosoldo byohimotooM/soMahaoLuxmioTooloManufacturers.oThus,o theo crosso examinationo ofo thiso witnesso clincheso theo matter.o o 21.o Prosecutionohasomiserablyofailedotooproveo onorecordothatoanyoofotheoaboveosaido13omachinesowereo everopurchasedobyoSandeepoSoodocomplainant.oLearnedo LoweroCourtoerroneouslyoheldothatoSandeepoSoodoisotheo owneroofotheseomachines.oNeitherotheoownershiponorotheo possessionoofotheseomachinesowithotheocomplainantohaso beeno provedo ono theo record.o Noto onlyo thiso eveno theo identityo ofo theo caseo propertyo iso doubtful.o Foro this,o Io wouldolikeotooreferotootheocrossoexaminationoofoPW-4o SandeepoSoodocomplainantowhoohasoadmittedothatoheo hasonotobroughtoanyoofotheoaboveosaido13omachinesoino theocourtoafterohisoexaminationoinochief.oAccusedohaso beenodeprivedoofohisovaluableorightoofocross-examiningo theoprosecutionowitnessoregardingotheocaseopropertyoaso theosameowasoneveroproducedoinotheocrossoexaminationo ofoanyoprosecutionowitness.oPW-4ohasoadmittedoinotheo cross-examinationothatoASIoAvtaroSinghodidonotopasteo anyo identityo chito ono theo machineo allegedo too beo recoveredobyohimofromotheoaccused.oHeodidonotogetotheo identificationoofotheomachinesofromoanyomanufacturero inohisopresence.oHeohasofurtherorepliedothatoheodoesonoto knowowhetherotheomachinesoareoidenticaloorodifferentoino contexto too theiro identity.o Hiso evidenceo regardingo theoGURPREET KAUR theftoofotheomachinesoisohearsayoasoheohasorepliedoinotheo crosso examinationo thato heo cameo too knowo thato theo machineso installedo ino hiso factoryo wereo stoleno byo accusedopersons.oHeohasofurtheroadmittedoitoasocorrecto thato noo FIRo oro anyo particularo ofo theo caseo haso beeno mentionedo ono theo machine.o Heo haso furthero admittedo thatoheohasonotogivenoanyodescriptionoorodetailoinotheo FIR.o Heo haso noto broughto originalo billso ino theo court.o Thus,o theo aboveo saido replieso ofo complainanto PW-4o Sandeepo Soodo ino hiso crosso examinationo leadso too theo onlyoinferenceothatocomplainantoisoneitheroinopossessiono ofoanyobilloofotheoaboveosaidomachinesonoroheocouldo showo hiso possessiono overo theo saido machines.o Theo identityoofotheomachinesoproducedoinotheocourtoisoalsoo doubtful.o Noneo ofo theo witnesso haso identifiedo thoseo machinesoneveroproducedoinotheocrossoexaminationoofo anyoofotheowitness.o o 22.o Whethero theo accusedo haveo beeno ableo too proveoonorecordotheiroownershipooverotheoaboveosaido machineso waso noto theo questiono too beo decidedo ino theo presentocase.oTheoonlyoquestionotoobeoseenoisowhethero theocomplainantohasobeenoableotooproveoonorecordohiso ownershipo ando lawfulo possessiono overo theo caseo propertyowhichoheohasofailedotooprove.oThereoisonothingo onotheorecordotooshowothatotheocaseopropertyowasotheo stolenoproperty.oThereoisonotoanoiotaoofoevidenceothato theo accusedo personso retainedo theo saido propertyo dishonestlyoorothatotheyoreceivedotheopropertyoknowingo orobelievingothatotheopropertyowasotheostolenoproperty.o Inotheoabsenceoofotheoproofoofoanyoofotheoaboveosaido ingredient,oIoamoofotheoconsideredoopinionothatolearnedo lowerocourtohasocommittedograveoerroroinoconvictingo accusedo personso U/so 411o IPC.o Accordingly,o theo judgmentoandoconvictionoorderopassedobyolearnedolowero Courto iso seto asideo ando theo appealo filedo byo appellants/accusedo standso accepted.o Accusedo standoGURPREET KAUR accordinglyoacquitted.oLearnedolowerocourtorecordobeo returnedoback.oAppealofileobeoconsignedotootheorecordo room."o

14.o o Ao perusalo ofo theo findingso recordedo byo theo lowero Appellateo CourtowouldorevealothatorespondentsoNo.2otoo5,ohaveobeenoacquitted,obyo returningotheofollowingofindingso:-o

(a)kTheo prosecutiono hado miserablyo failedo too proveo ono recordo thato anyo ofo theo 13o machineso wereo evero purchasedobyotheocomplainanto(SandeepoSood).ooo

(b)kTheocomplainantoisoneitheroinopossessionoofoanyobilloofo theomachinesonoroheocouldoshowohisopossessionooverotheo saidomachines.o

(c)kPW-4oSandeepoSoodo(complainant)ohadoadmittedothato heohadonotobroughtoanyoofotheo13omachineso(whichowereo allegedotoobeostolen)oinotheoCourtoafterohisoexamination-in-chief.oo

(d)kTheoidentityoofotheomachinesoproducedoinotheoCourtowaso alsoo heldo too beo doubtful.o Noneo ofo theo witnesseso hado identifiedo thoseo machineso aso theo oneo recoveredo fromo respondentsoNo.2otoo5.o

(e)kThereo iso nothingo ono recordo too showo thato theo caseo propertyowasotheostolenopropertyo

(f)kThereo waso noo evidenceo thato respondentso No.2o too 5o (accusedo persons)o retainedo theo saido propertyo dis-honestlyo oro thato theyo receivedo theo saido propertyo knowinglyoorobelievingothatoitowasotheostolenoproperty.o

15.o o Aftero goingo througho theo findingso recordedo byo theo lowero AppellateoCourt,othisoCourtoisoofotheoconsideredoviewothatotheolearnedolowero AppellateoCourtohasotakenoaoreasonableoandoprobableoviewoonoappreciationo ofoevidence.o

16.o o Hon'bleoApexoCourtoinotheocaseoofoAshokoKumarov.oStateoofo Rajasthano1991(1)oRCRo(Criminal)o14o:o1991(1)oSCCo166,ohasoheldothato interferenceoinoanoappealoagainstoacquittalowouldobeocalledoforoonlyoifotheo judgmentounderoappealoisoperverseooroisobasedoonomisreadingoofoevidence.o

17.o o Learnedo counselo foro theo appellant-complainanto haso failedo too pointooutoanyomisreadingoofoevidenceobyotheotrialoCourt.ooo

18.o o Ito iso ao settledo lawo aso haso beeno heldo inoC.o Antonyo v.o K.G.o RaghavanoNair,o2002(4)oRCRo(Criminal)o750othatoevenoifoaosecondoviewo onoappreciationoofoevidenceoisopossible,otheoCourtowillonotointerfereoinotheo acquittalo ofo theo accused.o Ino theo caseso ofo acquittal,o thereo iso doubleo presumptionoinohisofavour;ofirstotheopresumptionoofoinnocence,oandosecondlyo theoaccusedohavingosecuredoanoacquittal,otheoCourtowillonotointerfereountiloito isoshownoconclusivelyothatotheoinferenceoofoguiltoisoirresistible.oInothisocase,o noo exceptionalo circumstanceso haveo beeno broughto fortho soo aso too warranto interferenceoinotheoimpugnedoorderopassedobyotheoloweroAppellateoCourt.o

19.o o Noo othero legalo point,o wortho consideration,o haso eithero beeno urgedooropressedobyotheolearnedocounseloforotheoappellant.o

20.o o Thus,onoointerferenceoisowarrantedoinotheoimpugnedoorderodatedo

01.06.2012o passedo byo learnedo Additionalo Sessionso Judge,o Ludhiana.o Accordingly,ofindingonoomeritoinotheocontentionoofotheolearnedocounseloforo theoappellant,otheoappealoisoherebyodismissed.o o o Februaryo09,o2023o o o o o (HARSHoBUNGER)o gurpreeto o o o o o o o JUDGEo Whetherospeaking/reasoned:o o Yes/Noo Whetheroreportable:o o o Yes/No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-AS-40-2016 Date of Decision: 09.02.2023 SANDEEP SOOD …Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harjinder S. Sidhu, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for respondents No.2, 4 and 5.