IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 460 of 2003 Date of Decision : February 24, 2010 Surinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner alongwith Shashi Bala was tried by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, for offences punishable under Section 406 and Section 406/109 IPC, respectively. Vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2001, the trial Court convicted the petitioner and his co-accused for the said offences and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. Against their conviction and sentence, both the convicts filed their separate appeals. Vide judgment dated 20.2.2003, Sessions Judge, Faridkot, accepted the appeal of Shashi Bala, co-convict of the petitioner, whereas the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by maintaining his conviction for offence under Section 406 IPC. However, his sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the Crl. Revision No. 460 of 2003 -2- conviction of the petitioner. However, he states that the petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1998. The amount of loan has already been cleared by Shashi Bala and the attached property, which had been entrusted to the petitioner stands released from attachment. The petitioner has already undergone a period of about three months in jail and, therefore, his sentence be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that it was the petitioner, who did not produce the attached property before the Executing Court and, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve his remaining sentence, as apart from the aforementioned stand taken on behalf of the petitioner, it is a fact that the petitioner was taken into custody on 20.2.2003 upon dismissal of his appeal and granted the concession of bail by this court on 16.5.2003. Ends of justice would be amply met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly. The revision is disposed of in the above terms. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 24, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1