IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No.991 of 2000 Date of Decision: 11.9.2009 Basakha Singh. ....... Petitioner through Shri S.C.Chhabra, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab. ....... Respondent through Shri. B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 1.8.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') vide which, on the appeal of the petitioner, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.9.1999 rendered by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were modified and the conviction & sentence awarded to him for the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, `the I.P.C.') were set aside, whereas the conviction & sentence for the offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C. were affirmed. The petitioner was accused of having assaulted Shri Bhagwan Crl.Revision Petition No. 991 of 2000 -2- .... Singh – complainant, who was posted as Inspector, Cooperative Society, Focal Point, Khiala Kalan. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. It accordingly convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- 1. For offence under Section 186 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. For offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was disposed of by the appellate Court in the manner noticed hereinabove, resulting in the filing of the present petition. Without assailing the impugned judgment on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has already undergone 1-1/2 months' imprisonment out of total substantive sentence of one year awarded to him and that the occurrence is of the year 1998 and by now, he has faced the criminal prosecution for almost eleven years. He further contended that the petitioner was about 45 years of age at the time of occurrence and by now, he has fairly advanced in age. In view of this, he submitted that the question of sentence awarded to the petitioner may be considered leniently. Crl.Revision Petition No. 991 of 2000 -3- .... On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that the petitioner is guilty of having assaulted an Inspector of Cooperative Society while under the influence of liquor and he does not deserve any concession in the sentence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and having regard to the fact that the occurrence took place in the 1998 and eleven years have elapsed since then and also the fact that the petitioner would be fairly advanced in age by now as he was 45 years old at the time of occurrence, I deem it appropriate to convert the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner to that of fine. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of in the following terms:- 1. The conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the appellate Court shall remain intact. 2. The sentence of imprisonment is converted into that of fine and the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- within a period of three months from today. This amount shall include the amount of fine as imposed by the appellate Court. 3. In case, the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction, the sentence awarded to him by the appellate Court shall stand revived and he shall be required to undergo the remaining portion thereof. September 11,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge