Criminal Revision No.1288 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1288 of 2000 Date of decision: February 15, 2008 Subhash … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Ajay Ghangas, DAG Haryana for the State Dr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the complainant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Gohana on 7th August, 1998 for offence under Section 326 IPC to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 days. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal and the same was disposed off by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, who remanded the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Gohana. While remanding the case back, it was observed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat as under: “7. Without going into the merits the case, it is clear that the report of PW6 was not put to the accused in his statement recorded Criminal Revision No.1288 of 2000 2 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. PW6 specifically stated that his report was Ex.PW6/A and his findings were Ex.PW6/B on pages 38 and 39 of the report. The contents of the report were not put to the accused. What to talk of the contents even the reports in general were not put to him. It was not brought to his notice that PW6 gave reports Ex.PW6/A and PW6/B against him. Whereas it was the duty of ld. trial to put those reports to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In this way the right of the accused is prejudiced. The accused is to be afforded to an opportunity to say about this report. Hence, the impugned judgment and order are hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the ld. trial Court to record again the statement of the accused as provided under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide the case afresh. With these observations the appeal is hereby allowed.” Against the order of remand, present revision petition was filed by the petitioner. Same was admitted on February 14, 2001 and the further proceedings were stayed. Along with the revision petition, A/2 affidavit of the injured Dharam Bir had been annexed to say that the parties have compromised and no longer there is any ill-will, bad blood between the parties and they intend to live their life in peace, amity and harmony. Cordial relations are prevailing between them. Dr.Sushil Gautam has appeared for the complainant, Dharam Bir. He has vouchsafed factum of compromise and stated that since complainant has compromised in order to promote peace, he is one with the accused that he should not be put to further litigation or behind the bars. Dr.Sushil has stated that the accused has undergone about 7 days as under-trial. Both the counsels have relied upon the full bench decision of this Court rendered in ‘Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab – 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 2225’. Even otherwise, it has been held by the Criminal Revision No.1288 of 2000 3 courts that where there is a compromise in appeal or revision, sentence can be reduced to already undergone. Since the judgment of trial Court was set aside, the question posed before me is that where a compromise has been arrived, what course should be adopted by this Court. Whether in a revisional jurisdiction, this Court will be able to come to the rescue of the petitioner and the complainant, who have compromised or they should approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? Evidence has been recorded against the petitioner. After setting aside his conviction, Additional Sessions Judge has only remanded back for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Even by the trial Court, which has convicted the accused, as per various judgments, the sentence can be reduced to already undergone. It is expected that the trial Court will take the factum of compromise into consideration as a mitigating circumstance. The trial Court should also take into consideration that the matter pertains to year 1989 and accused have already suffered a protracted trial of about 19 years. Needless to say, the observations of the High Court in ‘Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (Full Bench) (supra) should also be taken into consideration by the trial Court. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 15, 2008. rps