Crl. Rev.no313 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. no. 313 of 2007 (O&M) Decided on : 03-09-2009 Prem Singh and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta and Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocates for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J Crl. Misc.No. 17647 of 2008 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, application is allowed and the order dated 8.4.2008 is recalled and the revision petition is restored to its original number. Crl. Rev. no. 313 of 2007 The case is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not wish to press the present petition on merits. Even otherwise, this Court 20.2.2007 while issuing notice of motion has observed as follows:- “Faced with this situation, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the occurrence had taken place in a spur of moment and the injury which attracted Section 326 Crl. Rev.no313 of 2007(O&M) 2 IPC is attributed to petitioner No.1 only. It is pointed out that petitioner no.2 who is wife of petitioner no.1, has been roped in merely because she appeared at the scene to save her husband and son, i.e., petitioner no.3. It is also highlighted that petitioner no.3 (Rajwant Singh), who is son of petitioners no.1 and 2, is a young student and no cause of administration of criminal justice shall be served by keeping him in the company of the hardned criminals in the jail. By highlighting more than one mitigating circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners no.2 and 3 deserve leniency.” In this view of the matter, he contends that lenient view of the situation be taken up. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to that of already undergone keeping in view the fact that occurrence took place in the year 1995 and the petitioners have faced the ordeal of criminal proceedings for the last 14 years and also the fact that petitioner no.2 Santokh Kaur has been attributed only Lalkara and petitioner no.3 has been attributed two dang blows on the back. The conviction of the petitioners however shall remain intact but keeping in view observations of Kharak Singh & Ors versus State of Punjab 2004 (1) RCR (Crl.) 766 (P&H), Sadhu Singh versus State of Punjab 2004(2) RCR (Crl) 108 (P&H), Moti Sagar & Ors versus State of Haryana & Anr. 2004(3) RCR (Crl) 519 (P&H), Radhey Shyam versus State of U.P, 2009 (1) RCR (Crl) 217, Darshan Singh versus State of Punjab 2006(2) Crl. Rev.no313 of 2007(O&M) 3 RCR (Crl) 212 the sentence of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is reduced to that already undergone and are burdened with fine of Rs.25,000/- each. The amount of fine shall be disbursed to the respondent-complainant on its deposit within a period of three months from today. However, it is made clear that in case of default of deposit of amount of fine within the stipulated period, the sentence of the petitioners shall automatically stand revived Disposed of. September 03, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge