Crl. Revision No.639 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.639 of 2002 Date of Decision: October 22, 2009 Sewa Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Poonam Sambhar, Advocate for Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.KDS Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 18.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby judgment and order, dated 28.8.2001, passed by the trial Court was upheld and the sentence of the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.250/- for the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and in default of Crl. Revision No.639 of 2002 -2- payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days; rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 days; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days, was affirmed with further modification of sentencing simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- to Kartar Kaur and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the commission of offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The present revision petition was admitted on 29.5.2002 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. Crl. Revision No.639 of 2002 -3- 6. The petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for about 10 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone more than two months. 7. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of about 10 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, 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.25,000/- . 8. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 120-B/420/467/471 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.25,000/- to be paid within three months from today. 9. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 18.3.2002 and that of the trial Court dated 28.8.2001 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) October 22, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No