IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 98 of 2004 Date of Decision: April 27,2009 Sukhdev Singh and others .....................................................Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..................................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Grewal, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment of both the Courts below vide which they have been convicted as under:- Sukhdev Singh U/s 452 IPC RI 6 months and fine Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine RI 1 month. U/s 325 IPC RI 6 months and fine Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine RI 1 month. U/s 323/34 RI 3 months and fine Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine RI 1 month. Kuldip Singh U/s 452 IPC RI 6 months and fine Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine RI for one month. [ 2 ] Crl. Rev. No. 98 of 2004 U/s 323 IPC RI 6 months and fine Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, RI 1 month. U/s 325/34 IPC RI 6 months and fine Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, RI 1 month. Satpal Singh U/s 452 IPC RI 6 months and fine Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, RI 1 month. U/s 325/34 IPC RI 6 months and fine Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, RI 1 month. U/s 323/34 IPC RI 3 months and fine Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, RI 1 month. Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the petitioner. However, this Court may take a lenient view while sentencing the petitioner as the FIR in the present case was registered on 15.3.1998. Learned counsel submits that as more than 11 years have elapsed since the date of the occurrence, therefore, the petitioners have suffered the agony of a long and protracted trial. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioners has been strongly controverted by the counsel appearing for the State who submits that both the Courts have concurrently held the petitioners guilty and, hence, no reduction in sentence is called for. After going through the judgment of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that as the petitioners have already faced long and protracted criminal proceedings for more than 11 years, therefore, a lenient view deserves to be taken in the case of the petitioners. [ 3 ] Crl. Rev. No. 98 of 2004 Resultantly, I uphold the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by both the Courts below. However, the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by them. Revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 27.4.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE