CRR No.1924 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1924 of 2002 Date of decision:25.03.2009 Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. L. N. MITTAL , J Jasbir Singh alias Jassi has filed this revision petition. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala vide judgment and order dated 22.10.2001 convicted and sentenced the petitioner and his co-accused Sadhu Singh alias Mor to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 354 IPC. In appeals preferred by both the convicts separately, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide common judgment dated 5.09.2002 while affirming the conviction, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years to 1½ years. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by Jasbir Singh @ Jassi only. According to prosecution version, on 9.12.1999 at about 8:15 AM, the prosecutrix was going on foot to catch a bus. Both the accused came in a canter. Sadhu Singh alighted from CRR No.1924 of 2002 -2- the canter and offered to give lift to the prosecutrix in the canter for Raikot where the prosecutrix was to go. The prosecutrix rejected the offer. Meanwhile, the petitioner, who was driver of the canter, also came down. Sadhu Singh caught hold of the arm of the prosecutrix and the petitioner embraced her. However, she pushed him away and got herself released. Her uncle Gurcharan Singh also came on cycle. Both the accused fled away in the canter. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not challenge his conviction but pray that the sentence of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. As per custody certificate filed today in Court by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already remained in custody for three months and nine days. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by learned State Counsel. I have carefully considered the matter. Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place more than 9 years ago and the fact that the petitioner has already remained in custody for three months and nine days, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be desirable to send the petitioner again behind the bars, but at the same time, the petitioner should be directed to pay some compensation to CRR No.1924 of 2002 -3- the prosecutrix. Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him, subject to the condition that he shall within two months from today deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- with the Trial Magistrate as compensation for the prosecutrix, failing which the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Trial Magistrate shall issue notice to the prosecutrix and shall pay the amount to her. With modification in sentence as aforesaid, the revision petition stand disposed of accordingly. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 25.03.2009 A.Kaundal