JUDGMENT
Mahesh Chandra Bhagwati, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11.1.1989 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge NO. 1 Sri Ganganagar Camp at Sri Karanpur whereby the accused appellant Kujinderpal Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of IPC and the accused Roop Singh has been convicted under the Arms Act, 1959 (for short here referred to as the Act of 1959). The accused appellant Kuljinderpal Singh, on conviction, has been sentenced to the period of 5 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of 3 months and the offence under Section 365 IPC sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous Imprisonment of three months.
2. For a occurrence which took place at 7.30 p.m. On 21.11.1985, the accused Kuljinderpal SIngh was charged for offence under Sections 365 and 392 IPC and the accused Roop Singh was charged for offence under Sections 365, 392 read with Section 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Act of 1959. It has been alleged that the accused persons hired one jeep bearing No. PUW 7857 of the complainant Pravindra Kumar. When they reached near Kenal at 36 RB they extorted Rs. 600/- from the pocket of complainant Pravindra Kumar, and confined him and extorted the jeep also. At the time of occurrence, the accused Roop Singh was having an unlicensed 32 bore pistol which was later on recovered from his possession. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that one co accused Darshan Singh has been absconding and he was not tried by the court.
3. Heard Mr. H.S. Sandhu, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. J.P.S Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned judgment of the lower court, prosecution evidence and relevant documents available on record.
4. At the very outset of the arguments, learned Counsel Mr. Sandhu has not questioned the conviction of the accused persons and he has merely confined his arguments to the quantum of sentence. While drawing my attention to the age of the accused appellant Kuljinderpal Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused Kuljinderpal Singh could have been given benefit of probation under the provisions of Offender Act he being below the age of 21 years, but the lower court instead of releasing on probation of good conduct sentenced him to the aforesaid imprisonment and fine. Further, as an alternate, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the ends of justice shall be meted out if he is released on the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. Shri Sandhu, learned Counsel has submitted that the accused appellant Kuljinderpal Singh has been in custody with effect from 11.12.1985, the date of his arrest to 3.3.1989 when he was bailed out by this Court. Thus, he has remained in jail for 3 years 2 months and 23 days. Similarly, the accused Roop Singh who has been convicted for offence under Section 25 of the Act of 1959 and sentenced to period of imprisonment as aforesaid, his period of sentence can also be reduced for the period already undergone as he has been in custody for a period of 4 1/2 months during trial.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has acknowledged the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant to be just and fairly conceded that the case is, of course, very old and the accused appellants’ sentence can be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
6. From the perusal of the lower court’s file, it is found that occurrence took place as early as in the year 1985. The accused appellants were convicted, sentenced to imprisonment and fine as aforesaid on 11.1.1989. Since then, this criminal appeal has been pending in this Court. On the date of occurrence the accused Kuljinderpal Singh is said to have been of 21 years of age and the accused Roop Singh was about 32 years old. Though in the offence under Section 25 of the Act of 1959 the minimum sentence of one year has been provided by the legislature but the court may for an adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment, impose the sentence of imprisonment for a term less then one year also.
7. The accused appellant Kuljinderpal Singh has been sentence to rigorous imprisonment of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in the offence under Section 392 and to the period of 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in the offence under Section 365 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The accused Kuljinderpal Singh was arrested in this case on 11.12.1985 and he remained in custody up to 11.1.1989 the date of pronouncement of judgment. Thereafter the sentence awarded to the accused appellant were suspended by the High court on 3.3.1989 and he was bailed out. Thus, he remained in jail during the trial of the case for the period of 3 years 2 months and 23 days. Similarly the accused Roop Singh has been sentenced to the period of 1 1/2 years RI with fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under the Act of 1959 and he has also been in custody for more than 4 1/2 months during trial. In spite of there being a provision of minimum sentence under Section 3 of Section 25 of the Act of 1959, this Court does not feel just and proper to impose the same for the reasons that the accused has been facing a tiring trauma of trial for the last 23 years and during a long journey of 23 years he has turned grey and now if he is asked to serve out the minimum sentence of one year at this stage, I am afraid interest of justice would be meted out. Keeping in view all these facts of I deem it just and proper to reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the accused appellants to the period already undergone by them for the various offences for which they have been convicted by the trial court.
8. In view of above, the criminal appeal filed by the accused appellants namely Kuljinderpal Singh and Roop Singh is partly allowed. Their conviction as aforesaid are maintained but their substantive sentence is modified and reduced to the period of sentence already undergone for various offences.