Crl. Rev. No. 31 of 2002 [ Page numbers ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 31 of 2002 Date of Decision: March 26,2009 Kirpal Singh ..................................................................Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........................... ................................. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner was charged and convicted under Sections 420/120-B IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year along with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 27.4.1999. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 11.12.2001 and, accordingly, the conviction and sentence has been upheld. Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to challenge the findings of the Courts below as far as conviction of the petitioner is concerned. He, however, submits that the incident in this case had taken place on 28.9.1989, therefore, the petitioner be dealt with Crl. Rev. No. 31 of 2002 [ Page numbers ] leniently while passing the order of sentence. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already undergone 3 months and 20 days of imprisonment. Counsel for the State has confirmed that the petitioner has undergone a period of 3 months and 20 days of imprisonment. She, however, submits that as both the Courts have convicted the petitioner, therefore, he deserves no leniency in the sentence. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has already faced a very long and protracted trial of more than 18 years. He has also undergone 3 months and 20 days of imprisonment out of one year RI as imposed by the Courts below. In this view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail at this stage. Resultantly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. The revision is accordingly disposed of. 26.3.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE