IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 80 of 2004 Date of Decision: April 21,2009 Ramandeep Singh ...............................................................Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh .....................................................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.4.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, vide which the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the conviction of the petitioner under the aforementioned Sections was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgment dated 3.1.2004. However, the sentence of the petitioner under Section 279 IPC was reduced from four months rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment and the sentence under Section 304-A [ 2 ] Crl. Rev. No. 80 of 2004 IPC was reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to nine months. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the findings of both the Courts below as far as conviction of the petitioner is concerned. However, as the petitioner has already undergone 46 days of substantive sentence and the fact that the occurrence took place 15 years ago i.e. on 2.2.1994, therefore, a lenient view be taken while sentencing the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner for reduction in his sentence has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Sharma, counsel for the U.T., who submits that as both the Courts have concurrently found the petitioner guilty under Section 279 and 304-A IPC, therefore, no reduction in sentence is called for. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has already faced a long and protracted trial of 15 years as the occurrence took place on 2.2.1994 and out of the substantive sentence of 9 months under Section 304-A IPC, the petitioner has also undergone 46 days of actual imprisonment. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him subject to the condition that he shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of Rajinder Singh, deceased. The amount of compensation shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, within a period of four months i.e. on or before 31.8.2009 and the same shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. Counsel for the U.T. is directed to inform [ 3 ] Crl. Rev. No. 80 of 2004 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, about the legal heirs of the deceased within a period of three months from today. In case of non-deposit of the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by this Court, the petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith and shall serve out the remaining portion of his sentence. Revision disposed of. 21.4.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE