In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1875 of 2003 Date of decision: September 08, 2010 Masoom Hussain .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 26.8.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, partly accepting the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 16.5.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.300/- under Section 279/337 IPC. The Appellate Court while maintaining the conviction under Section 279 IPC, acquitted him under Section 337 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 a little short of one month of the substantive sentence, may be dealt with leniently on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appear 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 detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception could be made to the findings returned by the courts below, at this revisional stage. Criminal Revision No. 1875 of 2003 -2- Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999; the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then; he has already undergone a little short of one month of the substantive sentence; no bad antecedents have come on record so as to dub him as habitual offender and he is ready to compensate the injured. 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 petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the fine is converted into costs of litigation. He is further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the injured as compensation within four months from today filing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur for compliance. September 08, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge