IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CRR-1297-2007 Date of decision: 25.09.2025 Bawa Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. **** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. 1. The instant Criminal Revision arises from the judgement of conviction/order of sentence dated 16.11.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Rupnagar, vide judgement dated 12.07.2007, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, in case FIR No.100 dated 28.07.1998 under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC, registered at Police Station Kharar, as follows : Offence(s) under Section Period of sentence Fine imposed Period of sentence in default of payment of fine 279 IPC RI for 01 year Rs.1,000/- RI for 02 months 304-A IPC RI for 01 year - - 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, fairly conceded that in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded VINAY 2025.09.25 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-1297-2007 -2- by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court, he does not intend to assail the conviction of the petitioner on merits. His submission is confined solely to the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the accident pertains to the year 1998, and the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 03 months and 22 days. It is further submitted that the petitioner has endured the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, is peace-loving and law-abiding citizen, and has no other criminal antecedents. On these premises, learned counsel pleads for a lenient view, contending that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to further incarceration. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for reduction of sentence while drawing attention to the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner, it has been submitted that the conviction calls for no interference. However, the learned State counsel is unable to dispute that subsequent to the accident of the year 1998, the petitioner has maintained good conduct and has not been involved in any other criminal activity. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 5. In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts enumerated hereinabove, particularly the circumstance that the accident is of the year 1998, and taking note of the fact—undisputed by the learned State counsel, that the petitioner has not indulged in any other criminal act thereafter and has otherwise been leading a VINAY 2025.09.25 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-1297-2007 -3- disciplined and law-abiding life, it would not be appropriate to send him back to prison at this stage of life, especially when he has already borne the brunt of prolonged trial proceedings. 6. In the totality of circumstances, ends of justice would be adequately met if, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, his substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 01 year is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 03 months 22 days. 7. Ordered accordingly. 8. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of. 25.09.2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2025.09.25 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment