Crl. Revision No. 3323 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3323 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 18, 2011 Rajbir Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Dilraj Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Sekhon, AAG, Punjab. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous im- prisonment for a period of two years for the commission of offence under Sec- tion 36 read with Sections 3,5,8,9,14(2),15,18 and 21 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide order dated 29.5.2008. Ag- grieved by the same, accused/revisionist preferred an appeal and the sentence was affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 3.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Section 36 read with Sections 3,5,8,9,14(2),15,18 and 21 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. Learned counsel has argued that this Court Crl. Revision No. 3323 of 2010 (O&M) 2 may enhance the fine and may consider to reduce the sentence for the period al- ready undergone. Mr. Jaspreet Sekhon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, states that no other criminal case is pending against the accused-revisionist. He fur- ther submits that the petitioner/accused has already undergone more than two months. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The present case was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 36 read with Sections 3,5,8,9,14(2),15,18 and 21 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. The sword of Damocles is not to hangover the head of the petitioner for all times to come. He has suffered mental agony due to registration of this criminal case against him. The peti- tioner has already undergone sentence for more than two months in this case. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the peti- tioner in jail in the company of hard core criminals; reducing the sentence for the period already undergone and enhancing the fine seems to be best option. Therefore, sentence is reduced for the period already undergone in the present case. However, fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to ` 50,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount of fine is not de- posited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification in the matter of sentence, this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge May 18, 2011 Anand