High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurdeep Singh vs Balwinder Singh And Another on 12 August, 2011

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs Balwinder Singh And Another on 12 August, 2011
 Crl. Revision No. 3347 of 2010 (O&M)                        1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH.

                            Crl. Revision No. 3347 of 2010 (O&M)
                            Date of decision:- 12.08.2011

Gurdeep Singh

                                            ....Petitioner
            Vs.

Balwinder Singh and another

                                            ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

Present:-   Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate,
            for Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate,
            for respondent No.1.

                       *****

A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)

Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated

03.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot,

dismissing the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated

13.01.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in

compliance with the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by this Court,

he has deposited the costs of Rs.3000/- with Punjab State Legal

Service Authority. He has also produced a receipt in this regard,

which is taken on record.

The petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-

to learned counsel for respondent No.1 on 10.08.2011 in view of

the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damodar S.

Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babulal H., 2010 (2) RCR (Crl.) 851.
Crl. Revision No. 3347 of 2010 (O&M) 2

However, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is silent

if the parties have compounded the offence.

In any case, it appears that the cheque was for a sum

of Rs.20,000/-, which stands already paid by the petitioner to the

respondent. He has already undergone 1 month and 14 days of

the substantive sentence. As such, the petitioner deserves some

modification in the quantum of sentence.

Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed with

the modification in the sentence to that already undergone by the

petitioner, without any alteration in the sentence of fine.

(A.N.JINDAL)
12 of August, 2011
th
JUDGE
ajp