IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.238 of 2005 Date of Decision 29.11.2010 Harjinder Singh and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Divyjot Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 23.11.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 10.01.2000, vide which the trial Court at Jalandhar, convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 392 IPC. The allegations against the petitioners are that they entered the office of Railway Station, Jalandhar Cantt. and while showing the revolver to the complainant, they robbed and took away a sum of Rs.124715/- from them. Consequently, on the basis of the complaint Ex.PA, case was registered and investigated. Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced accordingly. Their appeal also failed. Heard. Sufficient evidence has been led in order to establish the charge against the petitioner and his co-accused. Both Paramjit Singh (PW1) and Dharampal Singh (PW2) have consistently proved the Criminal Revision No.238 of 2005 -2- circumstances in which the robbery had taken place. They had duly identified the accused in the Court. Investigating Officer has proved the recovery of some of the amount from them. The evidence, on the basis of which findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been pointed out, resulting into miscarriage of justice or cause any prejudice to the petitioner, therefore, these findings do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Faced with the situation, learned counsel has sought some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having perused the record, it transpires that the offence was committed in the year 1988. The petitioners have already suffered a lot of agony on account of the pendency of proceedings in the Courts for the last twenty years and the sword of sentence remained hanging over their heads since then. They have already undergone nine months and six days of the substantive sentence. Thus, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to 1½ years without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 29.11.2010 mamta-II