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 :::
