CRR-814-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 298 Vinay and others State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. conviction 11.11.2021, Bhiwani in Vinay and others Sections 285 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Bawani Khera, commission of offence punishable under IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with default clause of fine. Vinay, Sanja punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fine. The petitioners have also laid challeng passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vinay and others Versus Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment conviction dated 10.11.2021 and order on quantum of sentence , passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in criminal case bearing CIS No. CHI Vinay and others, arising out of FIR No.210 dated 19.08.2015, registered under Sections 285 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Bawani Khera, whereby commission of offence punishable under Section 285 read with Section 34 of were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with default clause of fine. Vide same judgment and order, p Vinay, Sanjay and Sarmander were held guilty commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act undergo simple imprisonment for a period of . The petitioners have also laid challeng passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-814-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.05.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. petition has been filed against the judgment and order on quantum of sentence dated passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, bearing CIS No. CHI-1238/2015, titled as State vs. arising out of FIR No.210 dated 19.08.2015, registered under Sections 285 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms whereby the petitioners were held guilty for Section 285 read with Section 34 of were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six Vide same judgment and order, petitioners y and Sarmander were held guilty commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act as well and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with default clause of . The petitioners have also laid challenge to the judgment dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the 2025 (O&M) 07.05.2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondent petition has been filed against the judgment of dated passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, State vs. arising out of FIR No.210 dated 19.08.2015, registered under Sections 285 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms held guilty for Section 285 read with Section 34 of were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six etitioners y and Sarmander were held guilty commission of offence were sentenced to with default clause of 27.02.2025, whereby the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-814-2025 (O&M) appeal filed by the petitioners against the order on quantum of sentence 2. as not to press the learned Learned counsel confines his prayer against the order of sentence only. It is further submitted that case is pending against already been dep the sentence of the petitioner by him. 3. prayer. He Gajender @ Gaje Singh and 25 days sentence of 02 months and 16 days learned trial Court and in any other case. 4. conviction passed by the Courts below as the same are based on appreciation of prosecution evidence, proving guilt of the petitione fact that the already und other case, which shows that the mainstream of the society 2025 (O&M) appeal filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid judgment of conviction order on quantum of sentence passed by the learned trial Co Today, learned counsel for the not to press the present revision against the judgment of conviction trial Court, as well as the judgment passed by the appellate Court Learned counsel confines his prayer against the order of sentence only. It is further submitted that petitioners are not the case is pending against them. The fine as imposed by the learned trial Court has already been deposited by the petitioners. So sentence of the petitioners may be reduced to the Learned State Counsel has no serious objection has filed custody certificates, as per which, petitioner Gajender @ Gaje Singh have already undergone actual sentence of days, whereas petitioners Sarmender and Sanjay have undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 16 days out trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court and in any other case. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I uphold the judgment conviction passed by the Courts below as the same are based on appreciation of prosecution evidence, proving guilt of the petitione fact that the petitioners have faced the agony of protracted trial already undergone substantive period of sentence other case, which shows that they have improved their the mainstream of the society, the order -2- aforesaid judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court was dismissed. counsel for the petitioners has made a statement so against the judgment of conviction, passed by trial Court, as well as the judgment passed by the appellate Court Learned counsel confines his prayer against the order of sentence only. It is the previous convicts nor any other . The fine as imposed by the learned trial Court has osited by the petitioners. So looking into these circumstances, reduced to the period already undergone Learned State Counsel has no serious objection to the afore , as per which, petitioners Vinay and already undergone actual sentence of 02 months , whereas petitioners Sarmender and Sanjay have undergone actual of the sentence as awarded by the upheld by the appellate Court and they are not involved After hearing the counsel for the parties, I uphold the judgment conviction passed by the Courts below as the same are based on appreciation of prosecution evidence, proving guilt of the petitioners, however, considering the faced the agony of protracted trial and they have substantive period of sentence and are not involved in any they have improved their character and have joined order on quantum of sentence dated aforesaid judgment of conviction and was dismissed. has made a statement so , passed by trial Court, as well as the judgment passed by the appellate Court. Learned counsel confines his prayer against the order of sentence only. It is nor any other . The fine as imposed by the learned trial Court has looking into these circumstances, period already undergone to the aforesaid Vinay and months , whereas petitioners Sarmender and Sanjay have undergone actual sentence as awarded by the not involved After hearing the counsel for the parties, I uphold the judgments of conviction passed by the Courts below as the same are based on appreciation of , however, considering the they have not involved in any joined sentence dated MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-814-2025 (O&M) 11.11.2021 already undergone by upheld. The required in any other case 5. any, shall also be treated as disposed of. 07.05.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) is modified to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the upheld. The petitioners are directed to be released from custody forthwith required in any other case. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Since the main petition stands disposed of, pending application, if any, shall also be treated as disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- modified to the extent that the same is reduced to the period However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner be released from custody forthwith, if not tition stands disposed of accordingly. Since the main petition stands disposed of, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No modified to the extent that the same is reduced to the period petitioners is , if not Since the main petition stands disposed of, pending application, if MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document