IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1997 of 2003 Date of decision: February 11, 2010 Pardeep Kumar alias Manglu .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Manoj Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 30.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Pardeep Kumar (herein referred as 'the petitioner') and Jangi Ram (non petitioner) filed against the judgment dated 14.11.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, convicting and sentencing as under :- Jangi Ram U/s 323 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- Pardeep Kumar @ Manglu U/s 325 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- However, in appeal, accused Jangi Ram (non petitioner) was granted benefit of probation. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction but prayed for taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Having gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, concurrent findings returned by both the courts below regarding guilt of the accused stand affirmed. Criminal Revision No.1997 of 2003 -2- *** Now coming to the quantum of sentence, perusal of the file reveals that the petitioner has undergone two months out of the substantive sentence. The complainant received only one injury on his left leg and the remaining injuries are stated to be slaps. The occurrence took place way back in the year 2001. The petitioner has already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings. No bad antecedents have been brought on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, some leniency on the quantum of sentence is warranted. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by the petitioner, without alteration in the sentence of fine. February 11, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge