Criminal Revision No.12 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.12 of 2006. Date of Decision : 21.3.2011. Jugal Kishore & another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated December 16th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated May 11th, 1999 of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur whereby, petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 420 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- RI for 15 days 468 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- RI for 15 days 471 IPC RI for 6 months -- -- The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts. The present case was registered on the complaint made by Raunki Ram against Ram Rattan accused (since deceased) who introduced Nand Lal vendor from whom Satpal accused-petitioner purchased plot in question. The only allegation against Jugal Kishore is that he identified Satpal. It is the case of Satpal-petitioner that he did not know Nand Lal. Ram Rattan introduced him and assured him that he was vender and that is why, he identified him at the time of execution of the sale deed. Criminal Revision No.12 of 2006 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners do not challenge the judgments of conviction and only prays for reduction of sentence. 4. The grounds pleaded are that, (i) both the petitioners are in their 70s; (ii) the possession of plot has already been taken over by the original owner; (iii) the petitioners have already faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of 21 years; (iv) they were not charged or challaned in any case prior to or after registration of the present case and; (v) Ram Rattan-the main accused against whom complaint was filed has since died. 5. The grounds taken justify the request made so, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 21.3.2011. SN