IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 203 CRR-1533-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:-15.07.2025 SUKHDEV SINGH …..Pe..oner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, for the peoner. Ms. Prabha Bali, AAG, Punjab. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner was tried by Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul in a case arising out of FIR No. 92 dated 01.10.2005, under Secons 323/325 IPC, registered at Police Staon Phul. A4er trial, the peoner was convicted under Secons 323/325 IPC vide judgment dated 02.02.2010 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Secon 325 for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and under Secon 323 for a period of 06 months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved thereto, the peoner had filed criminal appeal which was partly accepted vide judgment dated 09.07.2011 by learned Addional Sessions Judge, Bathinda and modified the sentence which runs as under:- Under Secon 325 IPC : rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine Under Secon 323 IPC : rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months PRIYANKA 2025.07.16 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1533-2011 (O&M) 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this 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 his prayer only against the 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. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the assessment year 2005; that peoner-Sukhdev Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 28 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-Sukhdev Singh has already undergone actual custody sentence of 28 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. 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 p. 2 PRIYANKA 2025.07.16 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1533-2011 (O&M) concerned, within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE July 15, 2025 Pry Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No p. 3 PRIYANKA 2025.07.16 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document