IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 326 of 2005 Date of decision: November 17, 2010 Gurdeep Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 12.1.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 14.8.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs.300/- under Section 13- A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel has submitted that he being the first offender and having undergone more than one month of the substantive sentence may be extended some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Heard. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appear to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the opinion regarding conviction formed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2002 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then. He has already undergone more than one month of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come forth in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends Criminal Revision No. 326 of 2005 -2- of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to that of already undergone by him. However, is also burdened to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation, within three months from today failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for compliance. November 17, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge