IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.822 of 2000 Date of Decision 16.03.2010 Rajesh Kumar and others ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of U.T., Chandigarh. ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vinod Arya, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent-UT, Chandigarh. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 21.07.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing their appeal against the judgment dated 01.04.1998, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing them to undergo as under:- Name of Accused Sentence Rajesh Kumar & R.I. for a period of 1 year and to pay Sohan Lal @ Dabbal a fine of Rs.100/ each under Section 325 IPC. Raj Kumar & R.I. for a period of 6 months and to Bajinder Singh pay a fine of Rs.100/ each under Section 325 IPC. Allegations against the petitioners are that on 27.03.1994 at about 5:00 p.m. they gave beatings to the complainant Nirmal Singh on his nose. Case was registered against them and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. They were charged, tried, and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. Their appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Criminal Revision No.822 of 2000 -2- Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was detected which may render the judgment as invalid. As such, these findings do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1994. The petitioners have already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings pending in the Courts since then. They have already undergone one month 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 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.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, 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 petitioners are also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-, in equal share, on account of compensation to the complainant-injured Nirmal Singh within three months from today, failing which this petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 16.03.2010 mamta-II