In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1754 of 2005 Date of decision: November 26, 2010 Karnail Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Saini, Advocate for Mr. D. S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Dabla, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 8.9.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 8.12.2004 passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 341 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324 IPC. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner being the first offender and having already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence, may be dealt with leniently on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the accused is guilty of the offence for which he was charged. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused could be made at this revisional stage. Criminal Revision No. 1754 of 2005 -2- *** Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2002; the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then; he has already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence; no bad antecedents have come on record so as to dub him as habitual offender and he is ready to compensate the injured. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to that of already undergone by him. He is further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the injured as compensation within three months from today failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala for compliance. November 26, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge