Crl. Revision No.321 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.321 of 1998 Date of Decision: November 17, 2009 Rajinder Kumar .......Petitioner Versus The State (U.T.) .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.RN Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 17.3.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby judgment/order, dated 6.5.1996, passed by the trial Court was upheld and the sentence of the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the commission of offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 304-A of the Crl. Revision No.321 of 1998 -2- Indian Penal Code, was affirmed with the modification and reducing the sentence of the petitioner from six months to three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The present revision was admitted and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 24.4.1998. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial for more than 16 years, therefore, a lenient view be taken. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that since offence is proved, so no leniency should be shown. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for more than 16 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone about one month and seven days. 7. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of more than 16 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, 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 Crl. Revision No.321 of 1998 -3- sentence of fine is enhanced to an amount of Rs.10,000/- . 8. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of petitioner under Section 279/304-A 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/- to be paid to the family of the victim within three months from the receipt of copy of this order. Further, it is made clear that in case, fine is not paid within the stipulated period, this revision petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 17.3.1998 and that of the trial Court dated 6.5.1996 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) November 17, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No