IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision Petition No. 18 of 1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.9.2009 Prem and another. ....... Petitioners through Shri Kuldip Tiwari, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Addl.Advocate General. Shri H.N.Sahu, Advocate for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 7.1.1993 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') vide which the appeal of the petitioners preferred against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.5.1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were upheld. At the out-set, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that during the pendency of the revision petition, the parties had settled their Crl.Revision Petition No. 18 of 1993 (O&M) ..... -2- differences and a settlement was arrived at between the petitioners and the complainant, according to which compromise dated 15.10.2008 was written which was sought to be placed on record vide Crl.Misc.No.14464 of 2009. He further contended that soon thereafter, the complainant died in June,2009. Learned counsel for the complainant has not controverted this fact and has also stated that the complainant has since died. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case when the judgment in question has not been assailed on merits and also the fact that a compromise was effected inter se between the parties, which fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be squarely met if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to that of already undergone. It is also to be noticed that the conviction of the petitioners has not been challenged and the same is to be maintained. Accordingly, Crl.Misc.No.14464 of 2009 is accepted and compromise dated 15.10.2008 filed along with it is taken on record and the revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- 1. The conviction of the petitioners shall remain intact. 2. The sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to that of already undergone. September 10,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge