IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 510 of 2003 Date of Decision : February 24, 2010 Mohammad Sayed ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner alongwith others was tried by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, who vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2001 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The amount of fine was paid by the petitioner there and then. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 21.1.2003. He then filed the present revision, which was admitted on 21.4.2003 and he was directed to be enlarged on bail. It being a revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the evidence led by the parties cannot be appreciated. The Court has to look at the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below and then to determine as to whether they were illegal or infirm. There is no material available on the file from which it can be said that the conviction of the Criminal Revision No. 510 of 2003 -2- petitioner is not based upon legal evidence. Therefore, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the petitioner. The petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1996. Out of the sentence of six months imposed upon him, he has already served a period of three months in jail. When examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, the petitioner had pleaded that he was a first offender and the sole bread earner of his family. Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, for serving the remainder of his sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the same is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the fine of Rs.200/- imposed upon the petitioner can be suitably enhanced. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs.200/- imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) February 24, 2010 JUDGE satish