IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 206 CRR-344-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.04.2025 HARI KISHAN …..PETITIONER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ….RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. B.S. Tewaa, Advocate, for the peoner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner was tried by Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal in a case arising out of FIR No.591 dated 22.12.1998 under Secons 279/337/338/304-A/427 IPC, registered at Police Staon Sadar Palwal. A7er trial, the peoner was convicted under Secons 279/337/338/304-A/427 IPC vide judgment dated 24.10.2025 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, two months, six months, one year and three months respecvely and to pay fine of ₹1,000/-, ₹500/-, ₹1,000/-, ₹1,000/- and ₹500/-with default sentence of one month, fi7een days, one month, two months and fi7een days respecvely, simple/rigorous imprisonments in case of non-payment of fine. 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this peton was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the peoner stated at the outset that peoner does not press the peon against the judgment of convicon; and that peoner confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi>ed that peoner would be sasfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. PRIYANKA 2025.04.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-344-2007 (O&M) 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 1998; that peoner has already undergone actual sentence of 03 months and 03 days and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him. 5. Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer. 6. The custody cerficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that peoner has already undergone actual custody sentence of 03 months and 03 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. The offence was commi>ed way back in 1998 in the year i.e. 27 years back. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jusce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the peoner, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 8. Consequently, the present peon is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convicon, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the peoner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain same. 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 peoner will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 25, 2025 Pry Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No p. 2 PRIYANKA 2025.04.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document