In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1680 of 2005 Date of decision: November 26, 2010 Surjit Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. O.P. Dabla, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 18.8.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 27.9.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate IIst Class, Kapurthala convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners being the first offender and having already undergone one month and eleven days of the substantive sentence, should be dealt with leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having 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 regarding the guilt of the accused. 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 regarding the guilt of the accused could be made at this revisional stage. Criminal Revision No. 1680 of 2005 -2- Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2002; the petitioners have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against them since then; they have already undergone one month and eleven days of the substantive sentence; no bad antecedents have come on record so as to dub them as habitual offenders and they are ready to compensate the injured. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to that of already undergone by them. However, they are further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the injured persons as compensation within three months from today failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala for compliance. November 26, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge