IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1201 of 2002 Date of Decision 18.02.2010 Amit Singla ...... Petitioner VERSUS Union Territory, Chandigarh ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent-UT, Chandigarh ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 08.06.2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 23.08.2001, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-under Section 456 IPC. Allegations against the petitioner are that he used to give telephonic calls to Simranjit Sodhi and harassed her on the intervening night of 12/13.08.1995 at 1:00 A.M. He also trespassed her house with evil designs in order to commit an offence. He was caught and got arrested. The case was registered, investigated and challan was presented against him. He was charged, tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Criminal Revision No.1201 of 2002 -2- Even otherwise, both the Courts below while appreciating the evidence on record, returned the findings, holding him guilty of the offence under Section 456 IPC. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, no such illegality much less irregularity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction stand affirmed. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings pending in the Courts. The petitioner has already undergone some period of the substantive sentence. Under these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to three months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 18.02.2010 mamta-II