IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1826 of 2005 Date of decision: November 26, 2010 Raghbir Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is made to the judgment dated 2.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 13.12.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 338 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 304-A 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 five months and nine days of the substantive sentence, may be dealt with leniently on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings to the effect that the accused is guilty of the offence. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused could be made at this revisional stage. Criminal Revision No. 1826 of 2005 -2- *** Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995; the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then; he has already undergone five months and nine days of the substantive sentence and no bad antecedents have come on record so as to dub him as habitual offender. 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 which is reduced to one year without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal for compliance. November 26, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge