Crl. Revision No.655 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.655 of 2000 Date of Decision: November 04, 2009 Kewal Krishan .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.AS Kalra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.APS Mann, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two criminal revision petitions No.655 and 653 of 2000 as both of them arise out of the common judgment and order dated 20.5.2000. 2. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 20.5.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby judgment/order, dated 14.12.1998, passed by the trial Crl. Revision No.655 of 2000 -2- Court was upheld and the sentence of the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 337 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, was affirmed. 3. The present revision petition was admitted and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 9.6.2000. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. In this regard, learned counsel made a prayer that the petitioners have already suffered a protracted trial for about 17 years, therefore, a lenient view be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that negligence on the part of the petitioner is proved and, therefore, no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The petitioners have suffered a protracted trial for about 17 years. As per record, the petitioners have already undergone about 15 days. 8. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioners should be sent to jail at this stage. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, Crl. Revision No.655 of 2000 -3- the protracted trial of about 17 years, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced to an amount of Rs.25,000/- . 9. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 304-A/337/279 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to a consolidated amount of Rs.25,000/- each to be paid to the dependents of the victim within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 20.5.2000 and that of the trial Court dated 14.12.1998 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) November 04, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No