IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.226 of 2003 Date of Decision 01.09.2010 Varinder Kumar @ Varinder Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.K.Agnihotri, Advocate, for Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 26.09.2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 16.08.1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 452 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 506 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 20.03.1991, when the complainant alongwith Nirmal Singh was sitting in the factory of his son, the petitioner alongwith 2-4 persons entered into the factory and started abusing him. He pointed out a revolver towards the complainant but Nirmal Singh saved him. On raising hue and cry, the petitioner ran away from the spot after making threat to the complainant that he will not spare Criminal Revision No.226 of 2003 -2- and liquidate him whenever he finds opportunity, FIR was registered against the petitioner and the matter was investigated. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity was found or detected which may result into miscarriage of justice and render the judgment as illegal, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1991. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings pending in the Courts since then. He has already undergone five months of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, 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 to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 01.09.2010 mamta-II