CRR No.33 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.33 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.01.2011 Mehar Pal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This judgment of mine shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CRR No.33 of 2010, CRR No.34 of 2010, CRR No.35 of 2010, CRR No.36 of 2010 and CRR No.37 of 2010 arising out of the same judgment dated 5.11.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. Petitioner was found guilty under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. In appeal, Appellate Court/learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, has affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not CRR No.33 of 2010 (O&M) -2- challenge the conviction of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody for about one year during the pendency of this case and he has suffered a lot of embarrassment owing to the pendency of this criminal case. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, states that petitioner/revisionist is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The sword of damocles is not to hangover the head of the petitioner for all times to come. He has been suffered mental agony due to registration of this criminal case against him. The petitioner has already undergone for about one year in this case. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of this case while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone by him in this case. However, fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge January 18, 2011 R.S.