Criminal Revision No. 1284 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1284 of 1999 Date of Decision: 20.4.2009 Daya Nand Swami …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, petitioner Daya Nand Swami was convicted along with Garib Dass under Sections 162, 420 & 120-B IPC. They were sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, under Section 420. They were further sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 162 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrent. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with Garib Dass had accepted Rs.30,000/- from the accused in murder case to get those accused acquitted in a murder case. It is only when Criminal Revision No. 1284 of 1999 2 accused in murder case were convicted, petitioner along with Garib Dass were taken to task. The amount was allegedly accepted prior to year 1987. The matter was reported to the police on 31.12.1987. Petitioner along with Garib Dass was charged on 11.8.1988. Nobody was appearing on behalf of the petitioner. On 5.3.2009, this Court directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra should serve a notice upon the accused as to why coercive action be not initiated against the accused and his sureties, as nobody was appearing in the present revision petition, in breach of terms of bail/surety bonds. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra has reported that co-accused Garib Dass had died during the pendency of revision petition. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1385 of 1999 has been ordered to abate. Daya Nand Swami, petitioner, is present in the Court. He is very old, frail and infirm. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the matter pertains to April 1987, the petitioner has already suffered protracted trial of 22 years. Seeing physical condition of the accused/petitioner that he is very old, infirm and frail, benefit in reduction in sentence can be considered. Mr. Chopra, appearing for the petitioner, has stated that petitioner is 82 years of age. He further submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody on 20.8.1999 and was ordered to be released on bail Criminal Revision No. 1284 of 1999 3 by this Court on 28.10.1999. It is further submitted that petitioner has undergone for more than two months. Mr. Chopra has further submitted that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner and stated that taking into consideration protracted trial and age of the petitioner he should be leniently dealt with. He further submitted that he is conscious that this Court will not be in a position to re-appraise and re-appreciate the evidence. I find merits in the contentions of counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to already undergone subject to condition that he shall deposit Rs.15,000/- in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, within four months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. In case, the amount is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 20, 2009 “DK”