IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2004. Date of decision: 07.07.2011. State of H.P. … …Appellant Versus Charanjit Singh … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan in FIR No.148 of 2001 under Sections 147, 323, 341, 342, 357, 353, 332 and 504 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. The case set out by the prosecution is that on 30.7.2001 at around 8.30 P.M. Mango, Kathal and Guava plants were loaded in two tractors and were being transported from Nahan to Bhota in Hamirpur. At about 9.00 P.M. the tractors reached Bohlion. The complainant was accompanying the tractors in his 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 official jeep. At Bohlion the accused-respondent and members of the Truck Union of Paonta Sahib, were trying to force the tractors to return to Dhaula Kuan. The complainant’s jeep was also stopped. He was pulled down and slapped by Charanjit Singh and Devender Singh and was threatened with dire consequences. He was forcibly dragged into the truck and brought to Dhaula Kuan. The tractors were also forced to accompany these people. The case further is that when these tractors reached Dhaula Kuana, FIR was recorded and the accused were charged for the offences as noted above. On the evidence, the Court found only Charanjit Singh respondent to be guilty of offences under Sections 323, 341, 342 and 357 IPC and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month in case of each default. The State has now appealed. It is submitted that the learned Court below has committed grave error while imposing the sentence. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. There is no doubt that the respondent had no business intercepting the jeep in which the complainant was travelling and then threatening him with dire consequences, roughing him up and cursing and threatening him etc. However, after lapse of six years, I do not find any ground to interfere in the sentence as imposed by learned trial Court. The 3 settled principle is that sentence undergone should not be retributive but must be balanced taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Though it would have been desirable that the respondent had been handed down a severe sentence, but in view of lapse of time, I do not think it a proper case to interfere in with the discretion of the learned trial Court. Appeal is dismissed. July 7, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.