101 CRA-S-959-SB-2004 Date of Decision: May 14, 2025 Pardeep Kumar and others … Appellant Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) The five accused (appellants herein) faced trial on the allega&ons that on the night intervening 18/19.07.2001, all of them armed with various weapons, were found making prepara&ons to commit dacoity, while si0ng in the crema&on ground of Abohar City and thus they had commi2ed offence under Sec&on 399 IPC. FIR No.149 dated 19.07.2001, under Sec&ons 399, 402, 382 and 511 IPC and Sec&on 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered at Police Sta&on City Abohar, against them. Pe&&oner - Tarsem Singh was allegedly found to be in possession of a spring actuated knife and separate FIR No.150 dated 19.07.2001 under Sec&on 25 of the Arms Act was registered against him. similarly, the other four accused were also found in possession of the different kind of weapons. As such, FIR Nos.151 to 154 all dated 19.07.2001, all under Sec&on 25 of the Arms Act were registered against them at the same police sta&on. A:er necessary inves&ga&on, challans were filed and a joint trial was held in respect of case arising out of FIR Nos.149 to 154 dated 19.07.2001. The trial Court held all the accused guilty under Sec&on 399 IPC and also separately held them guilty under Sec&on 25 of the Arms Act. All the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- each with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months each for non-payment of fine. For the offence commi2ed under Sec&on 25 of the Arms Act, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay fine of `1,000/- with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months each for non- payment of fine. Both the substan&ve sentences were directed to run concurrently. Sarita Rani 2025.05.16 10:20 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRA-S-959-SB-2004 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:064299 2. Against the abovesaid convic&on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the appellants stated at the outset that appellants do not press the appeal against the judgment of convic&on; and that appellants confine their prayer only against the order of sentence. It is submi2ed that appellants would be sa&sfied, in case they are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2001; that appellants were young persons at that &me; that they are not involved in any other case and so, they deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by them. 5. Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer. 6. The custody cer&ficates placed on record by the respondent- State would reveal that the appellants have undergone the following total sentence:- Sr. No. Name of the convict Total period of sentence undergone by the convict 1. Pardeep Kumar @ Pi2o 03 months 02 days 2. Bikram Singh @ Bikkar 01 year 10 months 04 days 3. Sonu 05 years 4. Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha 02 years 08 months 05 days 5. Tarsem Singh 05 years 7. 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 appellants, instead of sending them behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 8. 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 appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. Sarita Rani 2025.05.16 10:20 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRA-S-959-SB-2004 - 3 - 2025:PHHC:064299 9. However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the appellants will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of. May 14, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.05.16 10:20 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order