IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.372 of 2005 Date of Decision 18.11.2010 Billu @ Virender ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 09.02.2005, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 16/19.09.2002, vide which the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 457/511 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 506 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 30.04.1999 at about 12:30 p.m., he, while trespassing into the house of complainant, committed theft and threatened his wife to give a knife blow if she does not remain quite, consequently, he fled away. The statement of the complainant led to the registration of the case against the petitioner and the investigation commenced. On trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal was also dismissed. Criminal Revision No.372 of 2005 -2- Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel seeks to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence on the basis of which findings of fact have been recorded by both the Courts below appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity was pointed out which may result into miscarriage of justice or cause any prejudice to the accused, therefore, these findings 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 1999. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to the pendency of proceedings in the Courts for the last eleven years and the sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then. He has already undergone more than one month of the substantive sentence. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, it would be in the fitness of things if some reduction in the sentence could be made. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to two months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 18.11.2010 mamta-II