Crl. Revision No.1831 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1831 of 2001 Date of Decision: November 10, 2009 Kewal Singh & another .......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another .........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Navdeep, Advocate as amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mrs.Manjari Nehru Kaul, Addl.Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala whereby judgment/order, dated 12.5.1998, passed by the trial Court was upheld and the sentence of the petitioners, was affirmed as under: Name of accused Section Sentence Kewal Singh 326 IPC Three years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months. Crl. Revision No.1831 of 2001 -2- 324/34 IPC SI for one year 323/34 IPC SI for six months. Gurdial Singh 324/34 IPC RI for one year 326/34 IPC SI for one year 323/34 IPC SI for six months Balbir Singh 323 IPC RI for six months 326/34 IPC SI for six months 324/34 IPC SI for six months 2. It is relevant to mention that the trial Court had sentenced three accused, named above, but the present revision petition has been filed by Kewal Singh and Gurdial Singh. 3. The present revision was admitted and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 14.12.2001. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. In this regard, learned counsel made a prayer that the petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial for about 17 years, therefore, a lenient view be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that since offence is proved, as such, no leniency should be taken. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The petitioners have undoubtedly suffered a protracted trial for about 17 years. As per record, the petitioners have already undergone Crl. Revision No.1831 of 2001 -3- about three days. 8. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of about 17 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. 9. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 326/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. 10. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 11.12.2001 and that of the trial Court dated 12.5.1998 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) November 10, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No