Criminal Revision No.1234 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1234 of 2000 Date of decision: February 12, 2008 Kaka Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Mansa and was awarded one year and nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 325 IPC. In default, it was ordered that he will undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also sentenced under Section 323 IPC and the sentence awarded therein was to run concurrent with the main sentence. Aggrieved against his conviction, petitioner had preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa on 22nd September, 2000. The petitioner had filed the instant revision petition in this Court. Same came up for motion hearing on 13th October, 2000 when the following order was passed: “Shri V.D. Verma, Adv. Criminal Revision No.1234 of 2000 2 States that he wants to argue on the question of sentence alone. Notice to A.G. Pb. For 22.11.2000 on the quantum of sentence alone. 13.10.2000 Sd/- (Amar Dutt) Judge” From the order reproduced above, it is evident that the counsel had only confined his prayer on the question of sentence and the notice was issued on quantum of sentence alone. Various orders passed on different dates, reveal that the petitioner was not released on bail. Therefore, on February 4, 2008, this Court passed an order and called for the report from the trial Court whether the petitioner had undergone his sentence or not. In response to the order passed by this Court, Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Mansa has communicated that petitioner has undergone about 211 days when he was released on 13th April, 2001 due to general amnesty given by government on Baisakhi. Since the present revision petition was only confined regarding the quantum of sentence alone and the petitioner has already undergone his sentence, the present revision petition is rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 12, 2008. rps