IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1982 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2010. Tara Chand and others. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana and another. ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 16.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby the appeal against judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2009 and order of sentence dated 23.09.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narnaul vide which the present revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.200/- each for offence under Section 323 IPC besides other sentences, was dismissed. CRR No.1982 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the judgment of conviction passed by both the courts below. However, it is contended that so far as order of sentence is concerned, the same be reduced to the period already undergone by them as the present petitioners are not previous convicts and they have been facing trial for the last more than 9 years and that they have already undergone one month of the sentence. It is further contended that it is a case of version and cross version and that complainant party has also been convicted separately for causing injuries to the present petitioners by learned trial Court and their appeal was also dismissed by learned appellate Court. It is further contended that moreover, parties have also entered into compromise as both the parties belong to same family and are near relatives. The prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant. All these facts have also not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is partly accepted and while maintaining judgment of conviction, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that petitioners are sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone during investigation, trial, appeal or during pendency of the present revision petition. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 17, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 2