IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.590 of 2005 Date of Decision 01.12.2010 Om Parkash ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Om Parkash petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') was prosecuted for the offence under Section 411 IPC and consequently, vide judgment dated 03.05.2003, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under the aforesaid offence. His appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 16.02.2005. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had stolen a maruti car bearing registration No.DL-4C-4099 and replaced its original number plate. He was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Heard. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or any manifest error apparent on the record has been pointed Criminal Revision No.590 of 2005 -2- out which may result into miscarriage of justice or cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The findings returned by both the Courts below regarding conviction stand affirmed and do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Faced with the situation, learned counsel seeks some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1997. The petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the pendency of the proceedings in the Courts for the last thirteen years. He has already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence. Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year without any alteration in the sentence of fine. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 01.12.2010 mamta-II