202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1135-2011 Date of Decision: May 15, 2025 Sukhmander Singh …Pe//oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the peoner. Ms. Prabah Bali, AAG, Punjab. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Peoner - Sukhmander Singh was tried by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, under Secon 279 and 304-A IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.201 dated 20.10.2006, registered at Police Staon Kotkapura. A3er trial, he was convicted and sentenced as under:- Sr. No. Offence Sentence (R.I) Fine Further sentence in case of non-payment of fine 1. 304-A IPC 01 year `1,500/- Imprisonment for 02 months 2. 279 IPC 06 months -- -- Both the substanve sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the peoner was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment dated 22.04.2011. 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this revision was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the peoner stated at the outset that peoner does not press the present revision 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. Sarita Rani 2025.05.16 14:55 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRR-1135-2011 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:065251 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2006; that peoner was an old person of 62 years at that me; that peoner has already undergone total sentence of 04 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 total custody sentence of 04 months and 03 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a3er this convicon, peoner has been involved in any other case. He was an old person of 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 peoner, instead of sending him 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 peoner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 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. May 15, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.05.16 14:55 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order