CRR No.567 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.567 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.04.2011 Satpal and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jaspreet Singh AAG, Punjab. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioners was found guilty under Sections 506/324/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Trial Court and were sentenced to undergo as under: - Satpal son of Duman Singh (i) to undergo RI for a period of one year for the commission of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. (ii) to undergo RI for a period of six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC. (iii) to undergo RI for a period of one year and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days for the commission of offence CRR No.567 of 2011 (O&M) -2- punishable under Section 326/34 IPC. Satpal son of Sohan Lal (i) to undergo RI for a period of six months. (ii) to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days for the commission of offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC. (iii) to undergo RI for a period of one year for the commission of offence punishable under Section 506/34 IPC. The appeal preferred by the accused/petitioners was dismissed and the order of the learned Trial Court was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala, vide order dated 8.2.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Sections 506/324/326/34 IPC. Learned counsel has argued that this Court may enhance the compensation/fine and may consider to reduce the sentence for the period already undergone. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, states that petitioners/revisionist are the first time offenders and no other criminal case is pending against them. He further submits that the petitioners/accused have already undergone about 2 ½ months. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be CRR No.567 of 2011 (O&M) -3- served by keeping the accused/petitioners in the company of hardcore criminals; reducing the sentence for the period already undergone and enhancing the fine to be paid to the injured seems to be best option. Therefore, sentence is reduced for the period already undergone in the present case. However, fine/compensation imposed upon the petitioners is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court, to be paid to the injured under Section 357 Cr.P.C.. The petitioners are directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification in the matter of sentence, this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge April 18, 2011 R.S.