Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2002. -1- ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2002. Date of Decision : 06.01.2011 Dhanpat and others ..... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ......Respondents 2. Criminal Revision No. 1078 of 2002. Mahinder Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana etc. ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. B.S.Saroha, Advocate, for Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioners (in Crl.R.No. 273 of 2002). Mr. Jatinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner (in Criminal Revision No.1078 of 2002). Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(Oral) Dhanpat, Sultan, Rajesh, Ram phal and Jagminder were tried by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar. They were convicted under Sections 148, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC by judgment dated July 15 th, 1996. They preferred an appeal. By judgment dated February 6 th, 2002, learned Additional Sessions Judge partly accepted their appeal and while upholding their conviction, reduced their sentence as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default u/S 326/149 IPC RI for 11 months ` 1000/- | SI for u/S 324/149 IPC RI for 6 months ` 500/- | 3 months u/S 148 IPC RI for 3 months -- Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2002. -2- ... The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2002 has been filed by the accused-petitioners challenging their conviction and Criminal Revision No. 1078 of 2002 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has stated that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits and confines his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. He has further submitted that the accused-petitioners have undergone actual sentence of 4 months and 13 days as is gleaned from custody certificates dated December 12 th, 2010. They are not previous convicts nor have indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case. They are the only bread earners of their families. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant – Mahinder Singh has contended that the complainant would be satisfied if he is awarded suitable compensation, that is, ` 10,000/-. 4. Taking into consideration the circumstances mentioned above, this Court is of opinion that ends of justice shall be met squarely, if the accused are sentenced for the period already undergone by them. The sentence, is, therefore, reduced to the term already undergone. However, the accused-petitioners shall pay a sum of ` 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation, apart from the fine imposed by the courts below, within one month from the date of receipt of this order and the trial Court shall reimburse the said amount to the complainant – Mahinder Singh, after due verification. In case of default of payment of compensation, the accused- petitioners shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. 5. The revisions are accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 06.1.2011 som