Crl.Revision No.651 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.651 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: September 10,2012 Ram Lakhan .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Nara, Senior DAG, Haryana. Daya Chaudhary, J. This revision is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.7.2009 and order of sentence dated 22.7.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh vide which the petitioner was convicted under Section 406 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul dated 15.2.2012 whereby his appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction/sentence was maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR under the above mentioned section was lodged against the petitioner in the year 2001. The petitioner remained behind the bars for 29 days during trial and after conviction, he is behind the bars since 15.2.2012. He is an old and 1 Crl.Revision No.651 of 2011 infirm person of 64 years. During this period, the petitioner has faced mental agony of trial and a sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over his head. He is the only bread earner of his family. Lastly, learned counsel submits that keeping in view the facts and mitigating circumstances of the petitioner, some lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner has been facing mental stress and agony of trial for the last more than eleven years and has already undergone about eight months of imprisonment, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, by taking a lenient view, I uphold the conviction recorded against him, but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- as fine, in addition to the fine imposed by the Court below, with the trial Court within a period of one month from today. In case, the amount of fine is not deposited within the stipulated period, he shall undergo the remainder period of sentence. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. September 10,2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) KD JUDGE 2