HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Rev.No.267 of 1998 Date of decision: 07.05.2009 Shanti Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondents *** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S. More, Sr.DAG, Haryana *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. J The present petition has been filed by Shanti Devi. She was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon on 14th of December, 1995 under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975. She was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, she was ordered to undergo RI for one month. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Chadha appearing for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had sold 15 kanals and 13 marlas of land through her attorney Ram Kumar. It is stated that Ram Kumar was son of the petitioner. A perusal of the trial court judgement reveal that the sale deeds were executed on 28th May, 1990. The Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner had acquitted co-accused Ram Kumar. Mr. Chadha appearing for the petitioner stated that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner as offence is made out from the documents relied by the prosecution. He has drawn my attention to the order dated 14th November, 1995 passed by the trial court where quantum of sentence was determined. In that order the trial court had recorded the age of the petitioner as 65 years. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is aged about 79 years. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner was taken into custody on 10th March, 1998. She was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 20th March, 1998. After hearing Mr. Sunil Chadha and Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr.DAG, I am of the view that in the present case, petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of about 19 years. She was sentenced to six months’ RI only. She is a lady and is aged about 79 years. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that sale was effected by her son who was acting as her attorney and was acquitted by the Appellate Court. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 07.05.2009 shonkar