Criminal Revision No. 825 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 825 of 2002 Date of Decision : 25.09.2009. Vipin Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. NAWAB SINGH J. This revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated March 27th, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby, the judgment of conviction dated April 29th, 2000 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh was upheld and the sentence awarded by the trial Court was reduced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default u/S 323 IPC RI for 3 months -- -- u/S 427 IPC RI for 6 months Rs.1000/- 2 months u/S 448 IPC RI for 6 months Rs.1000/- 2 months u/S 506 IPC RI for 6 months -- -- All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits and confines his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. He further submitted that the accused was 20 years of age at the time of occurrence and has faced the agony of protracted trial. Further, the revisionist remained in custody for two months and four Criminal Revision No. 825 of 2002 2 days. Keeping in view the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the revisionist be reduced to the one already undergone by him. 3. In this case, the occurrence relates to the year 1997 and the accused has already spent more than two months in custody. This Court is of the opinion that as the accused-revisionist has suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long 12 years, no useful purpose shall now be served by sending him behind the bars for any further period. 4. As a result, this Court upholds the conviction of the revisionist but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine shall remain intact. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 25.09.2009. SN