IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.2098 of 2004 Date of Decision: August 31, 2010 Balkar Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.KS Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.JS Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The petitioner was tried by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred as “trial Court”) under Section 11 of the Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) on the allegations that the accused-petitioner was owner of land bearing khasra No.371 situated within the area of village Ferozepur City, H.Bast No.108, Tehsil & Distt. Ferozepur. According to the complaint, the accused-petitioner divided the aforesaid land into more than five plots for the purpose of construction of buildings/ commercial/ industrial purpose. Thus, the accused-petitioner set up a colony as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act. 2. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court held the Criminal Revision No.2098 of 2004 -2- petitioner guilty under Section 11 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 3. On appeal, the lower appellate Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the present revision. 4. This revision petition was admitted on 25.10.2004 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no recital in the sale deed to the effect that the plots were sold for the purposes of raising construction of houses, still he does not challenge the judgment of the trial Court on merits. He has confined his argument for reduction of sentence mainly on the ground that the present petitioner is facing agony of protracted trial for the last eighteen years. It was a solitary incident and there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner is a previous convict or repeated the offence after having been released on bail. The petitioner is stated to have already undergone sentence of about 18 days. 6. Undisputedly, the present petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last eighteen years and there is nothing to suggest that he repeated the offence. 7. Thus, the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, under Section 11 of the Act, is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained, but the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of fine stands enhanced to Rs.25,000/- which shall be Criminal Revision No.2098 of 2004 -3- deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case of non-payment of amount of enhanced fine, the present revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 9. With the above modification/direction, the present criminal revision stands disposed of. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) August 31, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No