Criminal Revision No.13 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.13 of 1996 Date of decision: March 10, 2008 Amrik Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) On February 22, 2008, this Court passed the following order: In the present case, Amrik Singh son of Joginder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh @ Roda son of Gurnaik Singh were convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Sunam under Section 382 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Their appeal was dismissed on 17th October, 1995. Their revision petition was admitted on 10th January, 1996. On 25th January, 1996, their prayer for bail was declined. The prayer for bail was further renewed and was declined on 11th March, 1996. The record does not show as to when they were Criminal Revision No.13 of 1996 2 granted bail by this Court. The accused may have undergone their sentence. Registry is directed to seek information from the trial Court telephonically, whether the accused have undergone their sentence or not. To come up for hearing on 10th March, 2008. In response thereto, office has submitted that petitioner had undergone 1 year 4 months and 27 days and was released on 31st May, 1996 after depositing the fine. In this case, petitioner was sentenced to one year RI and has undergone 1 year 4 months and 27 days, i.e. more than the sentence awarded, probably, as the fine was not deposited. Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht appearing for the petitioner has stated that since the two courts below have returned the findings of fact and held the petitioner to be guilty, it may not be fruitful to assail the conviction, especially when the petitioner has undergone the entire sentence, and has submitted that in view of this, the present revision petition be dismissed as infructuous. Accepting the request of the counsel, present revision petition is dismissed as infructuous. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge March 10, 2008. rps