In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 554 of 2003 Date of decision: March 06, 2009 Amar Singh ... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-accused Amar Singh (herein referred to as “the petitioner”) against the judgment dated 2.5.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 13-A of Public Gambling Act. The brief resume of facts is that on 23.4.1998, at about 11.00 a.m. ASI Kanwaljit Singh received a secret information that the petitioner was indulging in “darra-satta” near Sabzi Mandi at a public place. He reduced the same into writing and sent ruqa to the Police Station Bassi Pathana, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P8) was registered. A raiding party was constituted. HC Bakar Singh and C. Sita Ram were made as bogus punters. As per directions, C. Sita Ram approached the petitioner and staked the amount of Rs.10/- against No.55 and handed over the marked currency note to him. The Crl. Revision No. 554 of 2003 -2- *** petitioner gave a receipt under his signatures as token of acknowledgment to C. Sita Ram. Thereafter, C. Sita Ram signaled the police party which raided the place and apprehended the petitioner. Ball Pen (Ex.P1), a parcha Darra satta (Ex.P2) wherein all the details were mentioned, card board (Ex.P3), marked currency note of the denomination of Rs.10/- (Ex.P4) and currency notes worth Rs.410/- were recovered from the petitioner. The case was investigated and challan against him was presented in the court. He was charged for the offence under Section 13-A of the Public Gambling Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Heard. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the petitioner has already undergone about one month out of the substantive sentence and the occurrence is old one, therefore, some lenient view be taken on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the same is shorn of any irregularity much less illegality resulting into miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1998 and the petitioner has suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone one month out of the substantive sentence. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced to the period already undergone. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that has already undergone by him however, sentence of fine is enhanced. In addition to fine imposed earlier, he would further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- more towards fine within three months from today failing which this petition shall stand dismissed in toto. Crl. Revision No. 554 of 2003 -3- *** Copy of the judgment be sent the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim his remuneration as per rules. March 06, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge