S. No.207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRR No.2272 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:24.04.2025 Rajesh Kumar .....Pe00oner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Peoner- Rajesh Kumar was tried by Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, in a case arising out of FIR No.127 dated 01.06.2004 under Secons 279, 337, 304-A IPC at Police Staon Kharar. A6er trial, the peoner was convicted under Secons 279and 304-A IPC vide judgment of convicon dated 08.01.2008 by the trial Court and was sentenced under Secon 279 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment year for six months and to pay fine of ₹100/- with default sentence of one month’s rigorous imprisonment in case of non- payment of fine and under Secon 304-A IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment year for nine months and to pay fine of ₹200/- with default sentence of one month’s rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine vide order of sentence dated 08.01.2008. On appeal, the judgment of convicon and order of sentece were upheld by the Court of learned Addional Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ropar vide judgment dated 05.07.2010. 2. Against the abovesaid orders, this revision was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the peoner stated at the outset that pe- oner do not press the revision against the judgment of convicon; and that pe- oner confine his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submiAed that RENU 2025.04.25 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2272 of 2010 (O&M) -2- peoner would be sasfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the pe- riod already undergone by him. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2004; that peoner was 38 years of age at the me of offence and he had already un- dergone sentence of more than four months as per order dated 10.11.2010 passed by this Court and so, he deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him. 5. Learned State Counsel has not seriously objected to aforesaid prayer. 6. As per order dated 10.11.2010 passed by this Court, peoner had already undergone sentence of more than four months. He was of 38 years of age at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2004 i.e. 21 years back. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jusce, if period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by peoner, instead of sending him behind bars in company of hardened criminals. 8. Consequently, the present revision 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. April 24, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.04.25 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh