IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.1624 of 2009 Date of Decision:16.5.2011 Dinesh Kumar and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. Assailed in this revision is the judgment dated 1.6.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Sirsa dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment dated 12.3.2007/16.3.2007, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, convicting the accused-petitioners and sentencing them as under: U/s : 467 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.300. U/s: 120-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. U/s:420/511 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- U/s 471 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the revision petition qua petitioner No.2 i.e. Sonu @ Naveen. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed qua Crl. R. No.1624 of 2009 -2- petitioner No.2 as not pressed. The present revision petition, therefore, survives only qua petitioner No.1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner did not contest the revision petition on merits and prayed that a lenient view be taken qua the quantum of sentence. After having gone through the judgments passed by the courts below vide which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above and the order vide which the appeal preferred against their conviction and sentence was also dismissed, it is just as well that the learned counsel for the petitioners has not argued on merits. The prosecution have proved their case beyond doubt and the petitioner have been rightly convicted. However, petitioner No.1 is stated to have undergone almost 2 years out of the total sentence of 3 years. Having heard counsel for the petitioner on the point of sentence, it may be observed that the case against petitioner No.1 was registered in the year 2001 and he has faced agony of criminal proceeding since then. As such, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence qua petitioner No.1 is reduced to two years each under Sections 467 and 471 IPC respectively. The sentence is to run concurrently as already ordered by the trial Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed except for the modification in the sentence from three years to two years each for the offence under Sections 467 and 471 IPC respectively. The fine and sentence qua all other offences will remain the same. However, in case petitioner No.1 has undergone Crl. R. No.1624 of 2009 -3- more than two years, it shall stand reduced to that as “having undergone”. Petitioner No.1 shall be released forthwith in case he has already completed two years of actual sentence. Disposed of in the above terms. 16.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE