IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2431 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: September 01, 2011 Darshan Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J A written request for adjournment has been made, but declined. Arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab have been heard. Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 2.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners-accused (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhuri, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of `200/- each under Section 452/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of `200/- under Section 323/34 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of `100/- each under Section 506/34 IPC. Having heard the contentions and examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the accused was guilty of the offence for which they were charged. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2004; the petitioners Crl. Revision No. 2431 of 2010 -2- *** have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against them since then; the injuries attributed to them appear to be simple in nature; they have already undergone nine months of the substantive sentence, as such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to that of already undergone by them without any alteration in the sentence of fine. September 01, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge