IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1827 of 2003 Date of Decision 08.09.2010 Desh Raj and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 11.08.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dismissing their appeal against the judgment dated 20/21.12.2000, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each on each count under Sections 332 and 353/34 IPC Charges against the petitioners are that on 05.05.1994, when the complainant Jagdish Chander, Land Valuation Officer alongwith Daya Ram and Balbir Singh went to the house of petitioner Ram Partap for the execution of warrant against recovery of a sum of Rs.1,89,000/- against him. After due identification, when he was shown the warrants, he started abusing and gave fist and slap blows to them. They also created hindrance in their official duties and caused injuries to them while they were on duty. The petitioners were tried, convicted and ultimately sentenced accordingly. Their appeal also failed. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the Criminal Revision No.1827 of 2003 -2- evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. The petitioners have been duly identified. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was pointed out which may result into miscarriage of justice and render the judgment as illegal, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1994. The petitioners have already suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings, pending in the Courts for the last 16 years. They have already undergone more than one month of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 08.09.2010 mamta-II