IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 26/2003 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Vinod Kumar …….Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & Another ……Respondents Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State. 14th October, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2001, Vinod Kumar v. State. Vide the said judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court dated 17.2.2001, passed by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 909/1998, State v. Vinod Kumar, pertaining to Crime No. 90/98, P.S. Kankhal, whereby the accused revisionist has been convicted for the offence of Section 332 IPC and sentenced to two years’ simple imprisonment. He was also convicted for the offence of Section 353 IPC and sentenced to one year’s simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Brief Holder for the State, it reveals that the revisionist Vinod Kumar sought an electricity connection for his house situated in village Jamalpur Kalan. He was running from pillar to post for a favourable endorsement on his application. In that connection, he contacted the lineman Shyam Singh, who was assigned the job of patrolman from the 2 electricity department. The revisionist requested time and again from this chap, who evaded his request on one pretext or the other. So, being enraged in anger, the revisionist manhandled Shyam Singh, which resulted in filing of the FIR and submission of chargesheet against the revisionist. The trial ended in the conviction of the accused revisionist, as stated above. 3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist does not want to advance his submissions on the merits of the case. He prayed for mercy on the quantum of sentence only. 4. The incident took place on 26.6.1998. The revisionist has been in gaol since 3.2.2003 till probably last of March, 2003. This way, he has spent almost two months behind the bars. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels it appropriate that the ends of justice will be met if the revisionist is let off with the sentence of imprisonment which he has already undergone. 5. In the result, the conviction of the revisionist is affirmed. However, the sentence awarded to the revisionist to undergo two years’ simple imprisonment for the offence of Section 332 IPC and one year’s simple imprisonment for the offence of Section 353 IPC are converted into the period of sentence which the revisionist has already undergone. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below are modified accordingly. 6. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 14.10.2011 Prabodh