Crl. Revision No. 2707 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2707 of 2011 Date of Decision : 21.12.2011 Gurmit Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent ………. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioners were found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `2000/- for the commission of offence under Section 452/34 IPC; they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ year and to pay a fine of `3000/- each under Section 326/34 IPC; they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of `1000/- each under Section 325/34 IPC; they were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 323/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 24.10.2008. The appeal filed by the accused/revisionist was dismissed and judgment passed by the learned trial court was upheld by learned Appellate Crl. Revision No. 2707 of 2011 2 Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 26.09.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Sections 452/326/325/323/34 IPC. Learned counsel contends that injured are the real brother and bhabhi of the accused and accused are ready and willing to pay `50,000/- each (`1 lac in total) to their injured brother and bhabhi as compensation under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He has further argued that they are first time offenders, therefore, their case may be considered sympathetically, either to release them on probation or to reduce the sentence for the period already undergone on payment of compensation as proposed. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, states that petitioners/revisionists are the first time offenders and no other criminal case is pending against them. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused/petitioners in the company of hardcore criminals; they have already faced mental agony; reducing the sentence for the period already undergone and enhancing the fine/compensation seems to be the 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 `50,000/- each (`1 lac in total) 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. Trial Court shall release the amount Crl. Revision No. 2707 of 2011 3 of compensation in favour of injured in equal amount. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have dismissed. With above mentioned modification in the matter of sentence, this revision petition stands disposed of. ( Alok Singh ) December 21, 2011 Judge Anand