IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1972 of 2011 Date of decision : 18.10.2011 Chanan Ram and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. NDS Mann, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH J. Though in this case notice was issued qua quantum of sentence but the counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make submissions on merits as well. The counsel contends that once the offence of cheating was not proved of which the petitioners were acquitted, it was not very appropriate to convict the petitioners for an offence under Section 120-B IPC. Though this point is arguable but the counsel still says that the petitioners would be satisfied if the sentence imposed on the petitioners is reduced to already undergone as they have already suffered the agony of trial and sentence starring at them. Instead of going into the merits of this issue, I find this to be a case where the sentence imposed is a bit harsh. As per the finding returned by the appellate Court, even the Revenue authority has ultimately come to the rescue of the petitioners and the petitioners are held entitled to the property in question. Accordingly, the petitioners were not found guilty of the main offence of cheating. Criminal Revision No. 1972 of 2011 -2- Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of. October 18, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE