Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1993 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1993 Date of Decision: 25.4.2008 Ujaggar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner Ujaggar Singh, whose age was recorded in the judgment of trial Court dated 22.9.1992 as 60 years, was convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 IPC. After the conviction from the trial Court, accused had filed an appeal. In appeal, his sentence was reduced from one year to six months, however, his conviction was maintained. While making the reduction of sentence, learned lower Appellate Court recorded the fact that the appellant, on the date of occurrence, was an old man of 60 years and occurrence has taken place on 22.9.1987. In the present case, occurrence has taken place on 22.9.1987. It is stated that when Basant Singh complainant went in his field to take turn of water, which has commenced at 2.55 P.M., he found that Ujaggar Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1993 2 Singh accused had diverted the water to his fields, whereas his turn to water his filed was to start at 4.40 P.M. When a protest was lodged, accused Ujaggar Singh pushed him down, resultantly complainant fell down and his turban also fell down. It is stated that accused gave him Kahi (Spade) blow, which is an agricultural instrument. Injured was medicolegally examined and after the X-ray injury was declared grievous. The present revision petition was filed in the year 1993, 21 years are going to lapse from the date of occurrence, and even learned counsel for the petitioner has also expired. Various efforts have been made by this Court to serve the petitioner. No service could be effected upon the petitioner. Even non-bailable warrants were issued but the same have not been executed. Before I could adjourn the matter, the fact that the present revision petition pertains to year 1993 arose my interest to look into the facts of the case. The very fact that in the year 1987, the petitioner was 60 years old, he will be now aged about 81 years and from the fact that he suffered a protracted trial and his sentence was reduced from one year to six months by learned lower Appellate Court. I deem it to be futile exercise to serve an old man, when his counsel who has filed present revision has also expired. Taking these circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that ends of justice will be fully met if the sentence of petitioner is reduced to already undergone. To put the facts on record, it will be pertinent to note that the petitioner was taken into custody by learned Appellate Court on 22.9.1992 and was granted bail by this Court on Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1993 3 4.1.1993. Therefore, the petitioner has already undergone three months and 12 days. Thus, the sentence of petitioner is reduced to already undergone as he has already undergone three months and 12 days out of his actual sentence of six months. With the observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 25, 2008 “DK”