-1- Criminal Revision No.198 of 2001. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.198 of 2001. Date of Decision: February 09, 2010. Gursewak Singh and others ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. J.S. Lali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners Gursewak Singh, Sardul Singh and Roop Singh were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Section 379 read with Section 34 and Section 440 of the Indian -2- Criminal Revision No.198 of 2001. Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). For the former offence, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. For the latter offence, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was further ordered that the sale proceeds of the wheat crop, which was the case property, be handed over to the complainant. The appeal preferred by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence, as recorded by the trial Court, was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, comprehending that the case of the prosecution against the petitioners stood proved beyond all reasonable doubts, did not challenge the conviction of the petitioners under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Code and Section 440 of the Code as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate Court, but prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence. The incident relates to April, 1991. After protracted trial, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court in January, 2000. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the lower appellate Court in January, 2001. The Sword of Damocles has, thus, remained hanging over the heads -3- Criminal Revision No.198 of 2001. of the petitioners for more than eighteen and a half years. Taking into account the fact that the petitioners have already undergone incarceration for about a month, I think no useful purpose will be served in sending the petitioners to prison again at this stage and ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of their rigorous imprisonment under Section 379 read with Section 34 and Section 440 of the Code awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. I order accordingly. However, the sentence of fine imposed upon the petitioners under Section 379 read with Section 34 and Section 440 of the Code and the default clause shall remain unaltered. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 379 read with Section 34 and Section 440 of the Code, the impugned sentence order stands modified to the extent indicated above. With the above modification in the sentence order, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. February 09, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE