S. No.219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRR No.2569 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.04.2025 Tirath Singh .....Pe..oner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amrindra Pratap Singh, Advocate for Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Peoner- Tirath Singh was tried by Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, in a case arising out of FIR No.61 dated 19.01.2003 under Secons 279/304 IPC registered at Police Staon Ghanaur. A5er trial, the pe- oner was convicted under Secon 279/304-A of IPC vide judgment of convicon dated 19.04.2010 by the trial Court and vide order of sentence dated 19.04.2010, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months under Secon 279 IPC and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of `500/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months under Secon 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the judgment of convicon and order of sentence were upheld by the Court of learned Addional Sessions Judge, Paala vide judgment dated 26.08.2011. 2. Against the abovesaid orders, this appeal was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the peoner stated at the outset that peoner do not press the revision against the judgment of convicon; and that peoner confine 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. RENU 2025.04.23 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2569 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2003; that appellant was of 39 years at that me and that he had already undergone total sentence of 02 months and 16 days 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. The custody cerficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that peoner had already undergone total sentence of 02 months and 16 days. It is revealed further that peoner has no other criminal antecedents. He was of 39 years of age at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2003 i.e. 22 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 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. 10. Disposed of. April 21, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.04.23 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh