IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.124 of 2003. Date of decision: 03.03.2010 Sher Khan ….Petitioner Versus Arshad Khan & Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Ramakant Sharma and Ms.Devyani Sharma, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Rakesh Raghuvanshi, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Mr.Anup Chitkara, Advocate For Respondent No.3: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred by the claimant challenging the quantum of sentence imposed upon the respondents by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan sentencing the accused-respondents to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- each and imprisonment till rising of the Court for offences under Section 325 read with Section of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 2. The State has not preferred any appeal and the complainant is now in revision. Both the respondents-accused were ordered to stand trial for offences as noticed above on the allegation that on 30.5.2002 at around 1.30 P.M. both of them in furtherance of their common intention started throwing wood from the land in possession of the complainant Sher Khan. When he remonstrated them and told them to stop this activity forth with they picked up a quarrel with him. Sahid Khan caught hold of him and other accused Arshad twisted his middle finger resulting in a minor fracture. On the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted both the accused. However, on the quantum of sentence, the Court holds that both of the respondents were first offenders in their youth who were unemployed and were earning their livelihood with great difficulty. Accused-respondent Sahid Khan is the father of two young children who were dependant upon him. The learned Court, on the submissions before it, held that it would be appropriate and in the fitness of things that instead of sentencing the accused for long term of imprisonment, they should be fined of Rs.1500/- each out of which a sum of Rs.2000/- was to be paid to the complainant and further both the accused- respondents were sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. 3. The complainant is now in revision as the State has already issued a certificate to the effect 3 that no appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the learned Court was in grave error in not following the principles of law applicable for sentencing and that the complainant having suffered a fracture, the accused were not entitled to any lenient view. He submits that there were persons who have breached the peace of society and the act was committed with deliberation and willful intention to cause injury/harm to the complainant. 4. I am not inclined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. True the case was admitted in 2003. I am not inclined to put the clock back by another eight years as the incident relates to the year 2002. At this stage, I do not consider it appropriate to direct that sentence of imprisonment be increased. The learned Court below has taken the view that it would be in the fitness of things in case both the accused are sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and the fine should be paid to the complainant. Considering the age of the respondents and the fact that the Court holds that it would be but natural to adopt a lenient view and a reformatory approach. In these circumstances, the only modification which I make in the judgment is that the entire fine amount should be paid to the complainant. The revision 4 petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. March 3, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.