Criminal Revision No. 490 of 2006 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Revision No. 490 of 2006 Date of Decision : 09.03.2011. Darshan Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent 2. Criminal Revision No. 511 of 2006 Date of Decision : 09.03.2011. Gurnam Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(Oral) This judgment would dispose of above mentioned two revisions as the same have been filed against the common judgment dated February 27th, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, -cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Rup Nagar, whereby he partly accepted the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 12th, 2002 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar. The Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence of both the accused-petitioners as under: - Darshan Singh. Offence Sentence Fine In default 323 IPC RI for 3 months ` 1000/- 15 days Criminal Revision No. 490 of 2006 2 .. Gurnam Singh Offence Sentence Fine In default 325 IPC RI for 1-1/2 years ` 3000/- 45 days 2. The occurrence took place on January 15th, 1997 on a trivial dispute of land, for which civil litigation was pending between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that he does not challenge the conviction and prays for reduction of the sentence of the petitioners on the grounds that, (i) they are in their 60s. ii). they have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 14 years; and (iii) they are neither previous convicts nor have they indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place about 14 years ago and the petitioners are in their 60s, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by them. 5. The revisions are accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 09.03.2011. som