In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1915 of 2003 Date of decision: September 08, 2010 Sewa Ram .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 6.9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, partly accepted the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 23.12.1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC. However, the Appellate Court had acquitted him of the charge framed under Section 304-A IPC. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought from this court to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence on the ground that he has already undergone more than one month of the substantive sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appear to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception could be made to the findings returned by the courts below, at the revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1986; the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him Criminal Revision No. 1915 of 2003 -2- since then; he has already undergone more than one month of the substantive sentence; he has not repeated the offence, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the fine is converted into costs of litigation. He is further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the each injured within four months from today failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat for compliance. September 08, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge