-1- Criminal Revision No.1437 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1437 of 1999. Date of Decision: February 09, 2010. Gursewak Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the 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 ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. J.S. Lali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Gursewak Singh, along with his co-accused ( non-petitioners) was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 336, 148 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter -2- Criminal Revision No.1437 of 1999 referred to as `the Code') and sentenced to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment for nine months besides fine. On appeal, conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 148 and 336 of the Code was set aside while his conviction and sentence under Section 379 of the Code was maintained. Under Section 379 of the Code, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was rigorous imprisonment for nine months and fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. As such, the appeal of the petitioner was partly allowed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, comprehending that the case of the prosecution against the petitioner stood proved beyond all reasonable doubts, did not challenge the conviction of the petitioner under Section 379 of the Code as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate Court, but prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence. The incident relates to April, 1987. After protracted trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court in February, 1997. The appeal of the petitioner was decided by the lower appellate Court in July, 1999. The Sword of Damocles has, thus, remained hanging over the head of the petitioner for more than twenty two and a half years. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for about a month, I think no useful purpose will -3- Criminal Revision No.1437 of 1999 be served in sending the petitioner to prison again at this stage and ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of his rigorous imprisonment under Section 379 of the Code awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. I order accordingly. However, the sentence of fine of Rs.200/- awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate Court under Section 379 of the Code and the default clause shall remain unaltered. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 379 of the Code, the impugned sentence order stands modified to the extent indicated above. With the above modification in the sentence order, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. February 09, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE