Crl. Revision No.2427 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2427 of 2003 Date of Decision: October 27, 2009 Surjit Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.K.K.Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Manjari Nehru Kaul, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 22.11.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby judgment, dated 17.1.2003, passed by the trial Court was upheld and the sentence of the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, was affirmed. Crl. Revision No.2427 of 2003 -2- 2. The present revision petition was admitted on 23.1.2004 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. In this regard, learned counsel made a prayer that the petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial for about 10 years, therefore, a lenient view be taken. 4. Learned counsel for the State does not raise any objection to the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for about 10 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone about two months. 7. In the present case, the occurrence took place on 21.6.1999. The accused was convicted on 17.1.2003. He has suffered the agony of trial for over a decade. Keeping in view the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced to an amount of Rs.10,000/- . 8. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the dependents of victim Maghar Singh within three months from today. Crl. Revision No.2427 of 2003 -3- 9. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 22.11.2003 and that of the trial Court dated 17.1.2003 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) October 27, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No