Crl. Revision No.1212 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1212 of 2002 Date of Decision: July 07, 2010 Hansa @ Hans Raj .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners (in Crl.R.Nos.1212,1213 and 1348 of 2002). Mr.DK Jangra, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl.R.No.1658 of 2002). Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. This order shall dispose of four Revision Petitions No.1212, 1213, 1348 and 1658 of 2002 as the same have arisen out of a common order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. However, the facts are being derived from Crl.Revision No.1212 of 2002 and a common order is being passed in this case only. 2. The present revision petitions have been filed against the judgment dated 17.5.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby judgment/order, dated 15/16.2.2000, passed by the trial Crl. Revision No.1212 of 2002 -2- Court was upheld and the sentence of the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.750/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, was affirmed. 3. The present revision petitions were admitted and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 1.7.2002. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. In this regard, learned counsel made a prayer that the petitioners have already suffered a protracted trial for more than 11 years, therefore, a lenient view be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that since offence is proved, so no leniency should be shown. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The petitioners have suffered a protracted trial for more than 11 years. As per record, the petitioners have already undergone about one and half months. 8. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, having faced the protracted trial of more than 11 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced to an amount of Rs.10,000/- in respect of each Crl. Revision No.1212 of 2002 -3- of the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of petitioners under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- for each of the petitioner to be deposited with Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Further, it is made clear that in case the fine is not paid within the stipulated period, these revision petitions shall be deemed to be dismissed. 10. It is further ordered that out of Rs.30,000/-, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited with the State and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. 11. It is made clear that this order shall read in both the Revision Petitions filed by accused-petitioner, Hansa @ Hans Raj, being Crl.Revisions No.1212 of 2002 and No.1348 of 2002 and he will pay enhanced fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/- only qua both the revision petitions. 12. Accordingly, this revision petition and other connected revision petitions filed by co-accused are partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 17.5.2002 and that of the trial Court dated 16.2.2000 are modified to the extent indicated above. 13. These revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) July 07, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No