IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CRR-2405-2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.09.2025 Sandeep Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Matvinder Singh, 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 19.03.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar, vide judgement dated 15.09.2007, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, in case FIR No.10 dated 17.02.2002 under Sections 279/337/338/304- A/427 of IPC, registered at Police Station Jalandhar Cantt., as follows : Offence(s) under Section Period of sentence Fine imposed Period of sentence in default of payment of fine 279 IPC RI for 06 months - - 338 IPC RI for 06 months Rs.500/- SI for 01 month 304-A IPC RI for 02 years Rs.1,000/- SI for 02 months 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, fairly conceded that in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court, she does not VINAY 2025.09.25 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-2405-2007 (O&M) -2- intend to assail the conviction of the petitioner on merits. Her submission is confined solely to the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the accident pertains to the year 2002, and the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of more than 04 months. 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 2002, 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 2002, 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 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 VINAY 2025.09.25 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-2405-2007 (O&M) -3- 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 02 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 04 months 04 days. 7. Ordered accordingly. 8. However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- under Section 304-A of IPC. The enhanced amount of fine is to be deposited with the “Punjab State Legal Services Authority Disaster Relief Fund, A/c No.44426937384, IFSC Code-SBIN0014656, State Bank of India, Branch Sector 68, SAS Nagar, Mohali” within one month from the date of this order and a copy of receipt of fine deposited be produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. It is made clear that in the event of non-deposit of the enhanced fine within a period of one month from today, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner, and he shall be required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him. 9. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence and enhancement of fine, the revision petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand 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