Crl.Rev.no.865 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. no. 865 of 2000 Decided on : 09-09-2009 Lakhwinder Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. R.N.Moudgill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab MAHESH GROVER, J Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has submitted that he does not wish to press the present revision petition on merits and confines his prayer to the following aspects:- (i)that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of 3 months and 7 days out of the total substantive sentence of 10 months awarded to him. (ii)That he was 32 years of age at the time of occurrence in the year 1995 and by now he is 46 years of age which fairly well advanced. (iii)That no furitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody at this stage when he has already faced ordeal of criminal prosecution for last 14 years. In view of above, he prays that sentence of the petitioner be converted into fine. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has contended that due to negligent act of the petitioner life of 21 years old person has been snuffed out and therefore, he does not deserve any leniency. Crl.Rev.no.865 of 2000 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered the matter in the light of the contentions which have been raised herein. Having regard to the facts that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 3 months and 7 days out of the total substantive sentence of 10 months awarded to him and also considering the fact that occurrence took place in the year 1995 when the petitioner was 32 years of age and by now after 14 years he is well advanced in age and has faced the ordeal of criminal prosecution for last 14 years, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending him to custody at this stage. Hence, having regard to the aforesaid facts and also 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) RCR (Crl) 212 the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone and he is burdened with fine of Rs.50,000/-. The amount of fine shall be disbursed to the L.Rs of the deceased on due notice on its deposit within a period of four 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 petitioner shall automatically stand revived Disposed of. September 09, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge