Crl. Revision No.2159 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2159 of 2003 Date of Decision: November 10, 2009 Sawai @ Sewa Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for for the petitioner. Mr.SS Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 9.10.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby judgment/order, dated 29/30.9.1999, passed by the trial Court was upheld and the sentence of the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the commission of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days Crl. Revision No.2159 of 2003 -2- and also to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.800/- and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, was affirmed. 2. The present revision was admitted on 23.10.2003 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 20.12.2003. 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 18 years, therefore, a lenient view be taken. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that as offence is proved, so no leniency may be shown. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioner has undoubtedly suffered a protracted trial for about 18 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone about 2-1/2 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 18 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.20,000/- . Crl. Revision No.2159 of 2003 -3- 8. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 323/326 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.20,000/- to be paid to the Haryana State Legal Service Authority within three months from today. It is made clear that in case, fine is not paid within the stipulated period, this revision petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 9.10.2003 and that of the trial Court dated 29/30.9.1999 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) November 10, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No