Criminal Revision No. 668 of 2006 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 668 of 2006 Date of Decision : 21.3.2011. Jagtar Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Petitioners in person with Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent-State. Manjit Kaur, complainant in person, with Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate. NAWAB SINGH J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated March 8th, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri affirming the judgment of conviction dated July 19th, 2004 and order of sentence dated July 20th, 2004 of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, whereby, petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 406 IPC SI for 1 year ` 500/- SI for 1 month. 498-A IPC SI for 2 years ` 1000/- SI for 3 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Manjit Kaur – complainant filed complaint under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against her husband – Avtar Singh, husbands' brothers - Jagtar Singh and Paramjit Singh, (present petitioners) and mother in law – Harbans Kaur. During trial, Avtar Singh was declared proclaimed offender. Harbans Kaur was Criminal Revision No. 668 of 2006 2 .. released on probation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that she does not challenge the conviction and prays for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by them, that is, 5 months and 23 days per custody certificates dated March 14, 2011. In support of it, she has submitted that the petitioners were residing separately from the complainant and her husband Avtar Singh. Complainant got married with their brother - Avtar Singh in the year 1990 and since then, she is residing in the house falling to the share of Avtar Singh. Two children were born out of the wed-lock. The petitioners have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 16 years. They are neither previous convicts nor have they indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case. 4. The aforesaid circumstances justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by them. 5. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 21.3.2011. som