IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.766 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 08, 2011 Balbir Singh & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he does not contest the revision petition on merits. 2. On oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Surjit Singh son of Nachhattar Singh and Nachhattar Singh son of Mehar Singh, residents of Phillaur, District Jalandhar, are impleaded as respondent Nos.2 and 3. Crl. Revision No.766 of 2011 [2] 3. Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. Arguments have been addressed only in regard to sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has offered ` 75,000/- to respondent Nos.2 and 3 which the respondents have accepted as compensation for the injuries received by them. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondents contends that the respondents do not want the petitioners to remain in jail any further as the petitioners and the respondents are all residents of the same area and they would like to live in peace and harmony. 7. The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused Balbir Singh Under Section Conviction RI for Fine Rs. In default RI for 148 IPC 1 year 500 1 month 326/ 149 IPC 3 years 1000 2 months 325/ 149 IPC 2 years 500 1 month 323 IPC 6 months 500 1 month Accused Bhupinder Singh Under Section Conviction RI for Fine Rs. In default RI for 148 IPC 1 year 500 1 month 326 IPC 3 years 1000 2 months 325/ 149 IPC 2 years 500 1 month 323 IPC 6 months 500 1 month Accused Gurdeep Singh Under Section Conviction RI for Fine Rs. In default RI for 148 IPC 1 year 500 1 month 326/ 149 IPC 3 years 1000 2 months 325 IPC 2 years 500 1 month 323 IPC 6 months 500 1 month Crl. Revision No.766 of 2011 [3] 8. The sentence of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone, considering the stand of the respondents. The petitioners have already undergone more than six months of actual imprisonment. The fact has been confirmed by learned counsel for the respondent-State. 9. The fine as awarded by the Trial Court and upheld by the Lower Appellate Court, if deposited, shall also be given to respondent Nos.2 and 3 in equal parts. 10. With the above modification in the order of sentence, the revision petition is disposed of. (AJAI LAMBA) August 08, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?