Crl. Rev. No. 31 of 2002 [ Page numbers ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Rev. No. 31 of 2002
Date of Decision: March 26,2009
Kirpal Singh ..................................................................Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ........................... ................................. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Present: Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab.
...
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner was charged and convicted under Sections
420/120-B IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year along with
fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for
two months by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, vide judgment
dated 27.4.1999. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment dated
11.12.2001 and, accordingly, the conviction and sentence has been upheld.
Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to
challenge the findings of the Courts below as far as conviction of the
petitioner is concerned. He, however, submits that the incident in this case
had taken place on 28.9.1989, therefore, the petitioner be dealt with
Crl. Rev. No. 31 of 2002 [ Page numbers ]
leniently while passing the order of sentence. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner has already undergone 3 months and 20 days of
imprisonment.
Counsel for the State has confirmed that the petitioner has
undergone a period of 3 months and 20 days of imprisonment. She,
however, submits that as both the Courts have convicted the petitioner,
therefore, he deserves no leniency in the sentence.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered
opinion that the petitioner has already faced a very long and protracted trial
of more than 18 years. He has also undergone 3 months and 20 days of
imprisonment out of one year RI as imposed by the Courts below. In this
view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by sending the
petitioner to jail at this stage.
Resultantly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner
under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, I reduce the sentence of the
petitioner to the one already undergone by him.
The revision is accordingly disposed of.
26.3.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE