Crl. Revision No.2246 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2246 of 2005 Date of Decision: December 08, 2010 Talwinder Singh and another. ….Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate with Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Dabla, DAG, Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J.(Oral) Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 22.11.2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 21.04.2005, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, convicting and sentencing accused Amarjit Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused Talwinder Singh was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ under Section 325/341 IPC. Further accused Talwinder Singh and Amarjit Singh were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250 each under Section 323/34 IPC. Allegations against the petitioners are that on 28.01.1999 they while armed with sticks inflicted stick blows on the left leg and left hand of the complainant, due to which he fell down on the ground, thereafter accused along with two other persons again caused injuries to the complainant. -1- Crl. Revision No.2246 of 2005 Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality, much less irregularity was detected which may render the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999. The petitioners have already suffered a lot of agony due to the pendency of proceedings in the Courts for the last eleven years. They have already undergone about four months of the substantive sentence. Admittedly, they are the first offenders. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. The petitioners are also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation which would be shared by the injured persons equally within three months from today, failing which this petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, for compliance. 08.12.2010 (A.N. JINDAL) vcgarg JUDGE -2-