IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.537 of 2002 Date of Decision: October 06, 2009 Parmod Kumar and another .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.JS Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rajiv Prashad, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment/order dated 26.2.2002/1.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby petitioners, Parmod Kumar and Vinod Kumar, were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the petitioners were ordered to further undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Criminal Revision No.537 of 2002 -2- 2. The present revision was admitted on 14.3.2002 and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence awarded by the Appellate Court be reduced to the period already undergone. In this regard, learned counsel made a prayer that the petitioners have already suffered a protracted trial for about 19 years, therefore, a lenient view be taken. 4. Learned counsel for the State does not raise any objection to the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioners have suffered a protracted trial for about 19 years. As per the record, the petitioners have already undergone more than 4-1/2 months. 7. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances and particularly the protracted trial of about 19 years, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced to an amount of Rs.10,000/- . 8. In view of above, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide judgment/order dated 26.2.2002/1.3.2002 under Sections 420/452/506 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Criminal Revision No.537 of 2002 -3- Rs.10,000/- each to be paid within three months from today. The amount of fine shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo the remaining part of their substantive sentence. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 26.2.2002/1.3.2002 is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) October 06, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No