IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 101 CRA-S-1496-SB-2004 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 07.05.2025 Jaswinder Singh …..Appellant Vs. State of Punjab .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None for the appellant. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Though bailable warrants issued against appellant has been received back unexecuted with report that the same could not be executed due to paucity of &me but perusal of the file would reveal that appearance for the appellant was lastly made on 09.08.2018 and ever since then, nobody is appearing for him. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court proceeds to dispose of the present appeal on merits. 3. Impugned judgment and convic&on as passed by the trial Court has been perused. Appellant Jaswinder Singh was tried by Ld. Addi&onal Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Bathinda in a case arising out of FIR No.51 dated 23.04.2000 under Sec&ons 363, 366-A of the IPC registered at Police Sta&on Rampura. A8er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec&ons 363 and 366-A of the IPC vide judgment dated 09.07.2004 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of 03 years and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of maximum two months rigorous imprisonment in case of non- payment of fine. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.07 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1496-SB-2004 (O&M) -2- 4. Against the abovesaid convic&on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 5. Today nobody is appearing on behalf of the appellant. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court and finds that convic&on has been recorded a8er proper apprecia&on of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the impugned judgment of convic&on and as such, the same is hereby maintained. 6. However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned it is no&ced that appellant was sentenced for a maximum period of 03 years and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of maximum two months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 7. The custody cer&ficate placed on record by the respondent- State would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 07 months and 29 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a8er this convic&on, appellant has been involved in any other case. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus&ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 9. Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic&on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 10. However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.07 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1496-SB-2004 (O&M) -3- concerned, within a period of four weeks’ from today, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE May 07, 2025 Nee&ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.07 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document