IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1994 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 02, 2010 Labh Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate. Mr. P.S. Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner, alongwith others, was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samrala for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 25.5.2001, the trial Court convicted him for the offence under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- on each of the six counts. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 5.9.2003, except for modification in the substantive sentences of imprisonment by reducing it from two years to one year on each of the counts. Criminal Revision No. 1994 of 2003 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner on merits. However, he states that the petitioner was recorded by the learned lower appellate Court in its judgment dated 5.9.2003 to be 87 years of age. After the dismissal of his appeal, he was taken into custody on 5.9.2003 and was granted concession of bail by this Court in the present revision on 26.9.2003. Even according to prosecution, the petitioner was shown to be an attesting witness of the Will, original of which was not produced before the trial Court. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner, his substantive sentence of imprisonment be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has opposed the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had identified a wrong person at the time of execution of the Will, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. The petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1996. The learned trial Court had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on six counts, besides paying an amount of Rs.500/- as fine on each of the counts. The learned lower appellate Court vide its judgment dated 5.9.2003 recorded the petitioner to be 87 years of age. Vide said judgment, the learned lower appellate Court reduced his substantive sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year. Criminal Revision No. 1994 of 2003 -3- Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, for serving his remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the amount of fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon the petitioner on each of the six counts can be suitably enhanced. Resultantly, conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon the petitioner on each of the counts is enhanced to Rs.2,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine alongwith the fine imposed by the trial Court, if not paid already, be deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 02, 2010 JUDGE satish