Criminal Revision No.15 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.15 of 2005 Date of Decision : 27.01.2011. Sucha Singh & others ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated December 11th, 2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated June 9th, 2003 of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, whereby, petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 467 IPC RI for 3 years Rs.1000/- RI for 9 months 471 IPC RI for 3 years Rs.1000/- RI for 9 months The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. During the pendency of this petition, Sucha Singh- petitioner has died. So, proceedings against him stand abated. 3. Learned counsel for the remaining petitioners has urged that he does not challenge the conviction and prays for reduction of the sentence on the grounds (i) that at the time of execution of sale deed by the complainant in favour of Sucha Singh (deceased) and the petitioners, Balwant Singh and Balwinder Singh- petitioners sons of Sucha Singh were not present nor were they aware of the fact that the sale deed was being executed in their Criminal Revision No.15 of 2005 2 favour by their father; (ii) that Ranjha Ram and Lakhwinder Singh- petitioners were only the attesting witnesses of the sale-deed; (iii) that the petitioners have undergone actual sentence of six months; (iv) that the petitioners have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 17 years; (v) that the petitioners are neither previous convicts nor have they indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case and; (vi) that they are the only bread earners of their families. 4. The aforesaid circumstances are of mitigating nature and 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 27.1.2011. SN