IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 204 CRR-2046-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision.:28.04.2025 Baldev Singh …..Pe22oner Vs. State of Punjab .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. R.K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner Baldev Singh was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ropar in a case arising out of FIR No.68 dated 29.08.2006 under Secons 279, 304-A of the IPC registered at Police Staon Chamkaur Sahib. A7er trial, the peoner Baldev Singh was convicted under Secons 279 and 304-A of the IPC vide judgment dated 01.09.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of one year and to pay fine of `500/- with default sentence of 02 months simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this revision peon 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 their prayer only against order of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.29 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2046-2010 (O&M) -2- sentence. It is submi=ed that peoner would be sasfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2006; that peoner Baldev Singh was of 62 years of age at that me; that peoner Baldev Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 04 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 sentence of 02 months and 04 days. It is revealed further that they have no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a7er their convicon, peoner has been involved in any other case. He was 62 years of age at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2006 i.e. 19 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 peoners, instead of sending them behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 8. Consequently, the present revision 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 peoners Binder Singh and Darshan Singh are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 9. However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.29 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2046-2010 (O&M) -3- earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, within a period of four weeks’ from today, failing which the peoners will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 28, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.29 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document