IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1693 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 21, 2011 Anil Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana. A.N. Jindal, J Custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is taken on record. Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 21.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused petitioner Anil Kumar (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 3/4.8.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of `1000/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act (herein referred as, 'the Act'). At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the conviction and urged that the petitioner has already undergone two months of the substantive sentence and prayed for taking lenient view 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 regarding the guilt of the accused for which he was charged. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. Crl. Revision No. 1693 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2003; the petitioner was in possession of a country made .32 bore pistol; he has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then; he has already undergone two months of the substantive sentence. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to four months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. September 21, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge