Criminal Revision No.2178 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2178 of 2005 Date of decision:- 20.12.2010 Satish Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG Haryana. A.N.JINDAL J.(Oral) Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 22.11.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioners') against the judgment dated10/13.11.2000 passed by the trial Court at Kaithal, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Section 353/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-each under Section 332/34 IPC. However, in the appeal, the sentence was reduced to six months for the offences without alteration in the sentence of fine. Allegations are that on 16.7.1994 when complainant Krishan Criminal Revision No.2178 of 2005 -2- Lal Chawla, AFM, HSEB, complaint center, Siwan Gate, Kaithal alongwith some officials of his department was repairing a transformer on Siwan Gate and there was no electricity, then the petitioners alongwith many persons came there; caught hold the complainant by his neck; abused him and tore his clothes. Case was registered and investigated. On submission of the charge report, they were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, some leniency on the quantum of sentence has been sought. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgments, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected in the conduct of trial or procedure, which may result into miscarriage of justice, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. The occurrence is of the year 1994. The accused-petitioners have already suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings pending for the last sixteen years. He has already undergone one month and twelve days of the substantive sentence. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency o n the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to four months each for both the offences without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Criminal Revision No.2178 of 2005 -3- Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, for compliance. December 20, 2010 (A.N.JINDAL) Vijay Asija JUDGE