IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2419 of 2003 Date of Decision 17.09.2010 Ajmer Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 18.11.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 04/05.02.2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 452 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 13.02.1996 at about 10:00 p.m., he while trespassing into the house of complainant Rajinder Parshad, threatened him to give whatsoever he had with him and caused injuries on his ear with pistol. On raising hue and cry, he was caught hold with the weapon. Consequently, on trial, he was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Heard. Sufficient evidence has been led in order to establish Criminal Revision No.2419 of 2003 -2- the charge against the petitioner. The evidence, on the basis of which findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence in this case took place in the year 1996 and the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings since then; he has already undergone more than three months of the substantive sentence; the injuries suffered by the complainant are minor and simple; he is the first offender and has not repeated the offence during the period of proceedings pending against him, incite this Court to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 17.09.2010 mamta-II