IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204 CRR-1240-2007 Date of Decision: 28.03.2025 MALKIAT KAUR @ JASBIR KAUR …..Pe..oner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. R. K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab. ****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner was convicted under Secons 379 & 411 IPC by the Court of learned JMIC, Amritsar in a case arising out of FIR No.57 dated 16.08.2005, registered Police Staon Kotwali, Amritsar, on the allegaons that on 16.08.2005, she had commi8ed the9 of the purse containing `1250/- belonging to complainant Bhupinder Kaur. A9er trial, the allegaons were found to be true and as such the peoner was convicted. She was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period of 06 months each both under Secons 379 & 411 IPC with fine of `2,00/- each with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one month each. 2. The Appellate Court confirmed the aforesaid convicon and sentence as per judgment dated 13.06.2007. Against the aforesaid orders of convicon and sentence, the present revision has been filed. 3. Today, at the outset learned counsel for the peoner has made a statement that he does not press the revision against the convicon and withdraws the same. 4. In view of the aforesaid statement, peon against convicon is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. PRIYANKA 2025.03.28 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1240-2007 -2- 5. However, learned counsel has pointed out that peoner is a lady; that offence was commi8ed way back in 2005 i.e. about 20 years ago; that peoner has already undergone custody period of more than 04 months and so in these circumstances, her sentence be reduced for the period already undergone by her. 6. Learned State counsel has no serious objecon to the aforesaid prayer. 7. In view of all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, parcularly to the effect that she is a women, there is nothing to show that she is involved in any other criminal case; that offence was commi8ed 20 years back and peoner has already undergone substanal period in custody, the impugned order of sentence is hereby modified by reducing the period of sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by her. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain the same. Disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 28.03.2025 JUDGE pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No PRIYANKA 2025.03.28 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document