IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 1846 of 2010 Date of decision:9.8.2010 Paras Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. **** ORDER This revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 31.5.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide which the conviction of petitioner Paras Kumar passed by SDJM, Meham was upheld and sentence was reduced from one year to nine months under Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act and fine remained intact. Notice of motion was issued in the revision as well as in the application for suspension of sentence on 8.7.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his argument with regard to sentence part only and states that if sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, he would not contest the conviction of the petitioner as he has already faced the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 7-1/2 years and having no criminal background. Moreover, he has undergone more than two months of actual sentence against the total sentence of nine months and is also ready to pay some reasonable cost. Crl.Rev. No.1846 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the State has no objection in reduction of the sentence if some reasonable cost is imposed upon him. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgments of both the Courts below and other documents available on the file. In this case, a written complaint against petitioner under Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act and Section 420 IPC was received in Police station, Meham from District Drugs Inspector alleging therein that in pursuance of letter dated 16.11.2002 of Civil Surgeon, Rohtak, District Drugs Inspector accompanied by a Medical Officer raided the Clinic in village Kharkara being run by the petitioner. The petitioner was found running the clinic without any legal certificate of RMP. Some medicines and registers were taken into possession and the petitioner could not show any certificate or bill of medicines to the District Drugs Inspector. As per allegations in the complaint, the petitioner was found in possession of allopathic medicines whereas he was not having any right to practice as per norms of Indian Medical Council Act. Although the petitioner was having degree in Ayurveda and Unani medicines but he was found to be practicing in allopathic medicines as some allopathic medicines were recovered from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the conviction of the petitioner but has restricted his argument only to the sentence part only by praying that sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. Learned counsel for the petitioner Crl.Rev. No.1846 of 2010 [3] also submits that petitioner is ready to pay some reasonable amount of cost. Moreover, the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 7-1/2 years and being the sole bread-winner of the family and having no criminal background, lenient view in the quantum of sentence may be taken and sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. The FIR was registered on 8.11.2002 and since then the petitioner is facing the agony of trial. Moreover, he has already undergone more than two months of sentence against the total sentence of nine months. He is not having criminal background. The prayer of the petitioner seems to be genuine and the same is accepted. Under these circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of petitioner Paras Kumar under Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to payment of Rs.25000/- as costs. The said amount be deposited before the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the petitioner would undergo the remainder of sentence. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with above-said modification in the sentence. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 9, 2010. raghav