Crl. Revision No. 534 of 2006 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 534 of 2006 Date of Decision: 09.03.2011. Kulwant Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.C.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated February 27th, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated January 28th, 2003 of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby, petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence U/S Sentence Fine In default Kulwant Singh and Baljinder Singh (Petitioners no. 1 and 3) 324 IPC RI for 1 year ` 300/- RI for 2 months 324/34 IPC RI for 6 months ` 100/- RI for 2 months 323/34 IPC RI for 4 months ` 100/- RI for 15 days Sarabjit Singh, petitioner No.2 324/34 IPC RI for 6 months ` 200/- RI for 1 month 323/34 IPC RI for 4 months ` 100/- RI for 15 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Crl. Revision No. 534 of 2006 2 .. 2. The occurrence took place on June 20th, 2000 on a trivial dispute of dismantling the boundary (doll) of the fields. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that he does not challenge the conviction and prays for reduction of the sentence of the petitioners on the grounds that, (i) the parties are residing in the same village (ii). they have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 11 years; and (iii) they are neither previous convicts nor have they indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place about 11 years ago, this Court is inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioners for reduction of their sentence. 5. In that view of the matter and in the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by them. 6. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 09.03.2011 som