IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 205 CRR-1571-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision.:09.05.2025 Jaswant Singh …..Pe//oner Vs. State of Punjab .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None for the peoner. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab. (through Video Conferencing). **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner Jaswant Singh was tried by Ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Class, Dasuya in a case arising out of FIR No.37 dated 07.03.2004 under Secons 279, 338, 304-A of the IPC registered at Police Staon Dasuya. A2er trial, the peoner was convicted under Secons 279, 338, 304 and 304-A of the IPC vide judgment dated 06.08.2010 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of one year and to pay maximum fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of maximum 15 days rigorous imprisonment in case of non- payment of fine. On appeal, the judgment of convicon and order of sentence were upheld by the Court of Addional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) Fast Tract Court-1, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 01.05.2012. 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this revision peon was filed. 3. Today nobody is appearing on behalf of the peoner. This Court has gone through the impugned judgments of Courts below and finds that convicon has been recorded a2er proper appreciaon of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the impugned judgment of convicon and as such, the same is hereby NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.09 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1571-2012 (O&M) -2- maintained. 4. However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned it is noced that peoner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of one year and to pay maximum fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of maximum 15 days rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 5. The order dated 30.07.2012, whereby sentence of the peoner had suspended would reveal that peoner had already undergone three months of actual sentence. The offence had taken place way back in 2004 i.e. 21 years back. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE May 09, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.09 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document