JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. A. 5/2000, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate holding the petitioner herein guilty for violation of Section 2(ia)a)(f)(m) of the PFA Act and Rule 50(1) nd Rule 50(7) of PFA Rules punishable under Section 16 r/w Section 7 of PFA Act and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month for violation of Rule 50(1), and further sentenced him to undergo SI for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further SI for one month for violation of Rule 50(7) and SI for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine further SI for two months for violation of Section 2(ia)(a)(j)(m).
2. With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State I have gone through the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction on merit. I, therefore, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is of 1988 and the petitioner has already suffered the rigors of trial for more than 15 years. He submits that the petitioner is on bail since 30th January, 2001 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this Court. He submits that the petitioner is also not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of the society as a useful citizen, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining
portion of his sentence at this belated stage. He also refers to the judgment of this court in SHISH RAM v. STATE [2001 IV AD (DELHI) 173 ] wherein this court has held that the sentence can be commuted to the period already undergone and has enhanced the fine imposed. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the above-cited judgment of this court, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone while the fine imposed is enhanced from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 4000/- as fine. The balance amount of fine, that is, Rs. 6000/- shall be deposited by the petitioner within one week from today, failing which sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the trial court shall continue.
4. With this modification, Crl. Rev. P. 36/2001 is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The bail bond and the surety shall stand discharged.