In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2210 of 2005 Date of decision: December 13, 2010 Mahender Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 24.11.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 20.8.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections 332 and 506 IPC (on both counts); rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 353 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 186 IPC. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner being the first offender and having already undergone one month of the substantive sentence, may be dealt with leniently on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception could be made to the findings returned by the courts below. Criminal Revision No. 2210 of 2005 -2- Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1996; the petitioners have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against them since then; they have already undergone one month and ten days of the substantive sentence; no bad antecedents have come on record so as to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the extent that they be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the fine is converted into costs of litigation. They are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- more towards costs of litigation. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad for compliance. December 13, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge