256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No.3436 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: 06.03.2018

Budh Singh
. . . Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present: Mr. K.S. Kahlon, Advocate
for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ranjit Singh Saini, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

*****
H.S. Madaan, J. (Oral)

Budh Singh and his wife Jaswinder Kaur were tried by

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, who vide judgment dated

05.10.2015, convicted Budh Singh for offences under Sections 420 and

406 IPC and vide order of even date, sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and

in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for

a period of seven days under Section 420 IPC and as regards offence

under Section 406 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Vide this judgment

Jaswinder Kaur was acquitted of the charges framed against her.

1 of 3
17-03-2018 23:57:17 :::
2

CRR No.3436 of 2017 (OM)

Feeling dissatisfied with the said judgment of his conviction

and sentence, Budh Singh had preferred an appeal to Court of Sessions,

which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who vide

judgment dated 13.09.2017 dismissed the appeal and accused convict was

ordered to be taken into custody for serving remaining part of sentence of

imprisonment.

The convict was approached this Court by way of filing of the

present criminal revision petition challenging the judgments passed by the

Courts below.

Notice of this petition was given to the State as well as

complainant who have put in appearance.

During the pendency of the appeal, the matter has been

compromised between the parties. Written compromise in that regard has

been placed on file along with affidavit of the complainant. The complainant

is present in the Court along with his counsel. He has admitted that the

matter has been compromised between the parties and stated that he has no

objection if the leniency is shown to the petitioner in the matter of sentence.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State

Counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant besides going

through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he does

not challenge the judgment, passed by the Courts below, as regards the

conviction part. He wants to make submissions on the point of sentence and

prays that in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the

parties, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

2 of 3
17-03-2018 23:57:19 :::
3

CRR No.3436 of 2017 (OM)

According to learned counsel for the revision petitioner, such

petitioner is aged about 54 years, married, having children. He is not shown

to have any previous criminal record.

As per the latest custody certificate filed by learned State

counsel, petitioner Budh Singh has undergone total sentence of 04 months

and 25 days. Furthermore, the amount of fine is stated to have been paid. In

my view, ends of justice shall be adequately met, if the petitioner is

sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him in this case. Therefore,

impugned judgments are upheld as regards the conviction part, however,

with respect to the sentence portion, those are modified as mentioned supra.

It is ordered accordingly.

As mentioned in the impugned judgment passed by Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya on 05.10.2015, the fine has been paid by the

petitioner.

The criminal revision petition stands disposed of.

[H.S MADAAN ]
JUDGE
March 06, 2018
sachin

Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
17-03-2018 23:57:19 :::