Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47252 (PNJ)

BALRAM & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRR/1753/2012 · 2025-04-28

Deepak Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 209 (02) CRR-1753-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision.:28.04.2025 Balram and others …..Pe33oners Vs. State of Punjab .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. H.S. Saggu, Advocate for the peoners. Mr. R.K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is informed by learned counsel for the peoners that one of the peoner namely Manjit Singh has since expired on 23.05.2017. Learned counsel has placed on record the copy of the death cerficate. 2. Learned State counsel does not dispute the said fact. 3. As such, the present revision peon qua peoner Manjit Singh stands abated. 4. Peoners Balram and Ajay Kumar were tried by Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda in a case arising out of FIR No.63 dated 23.05.2004 under Secons 324, 323, 34 of the IPC registered at Police Staon City, Nathana. A:er trial, the peoners were convicted under Secons 148, 324, 323 read with Secon 149 of the IPC vide judgment dated 02.02.2011 by the trial Court and was sentenced as under: Name of Convict Sentenced under Sec3ons Rigorous Imprisonment Awarded And Fine Imprisonment in default of payment of ine NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.29 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1753-2012 (O&M) -2- Balram Secon 148 IPC 01 year `500/- SI for 15 days. Secon 324 read with Secon 149 IPC 01 year `500/- SI for 15 days. Secon 323 IPC 06 months `500/- SI for 15 days. Ajay Kumar Secon 148 IPC 01 year `500/- SI for 15 days. Secon 324 IPC read with Secon 149 IPC 01 year `500/- SI for 15 days. Secon 323 IPC 06 months `500/- SI for 15 days. All substanve sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this revision peon was filed. 6. Today learned counsel for the peoners stated at the outset that peoners does not press the revision peon against the judgment of convicon; and that peoners confines their prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi?ed that peoners would be sasfied, in case they are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 7. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2004; that peoner Balram was of 40 years of age at that me and peoner Ajay Kumar was of 42 years of age at that me, thus by now they are 61 and 63 years of age respecvely; that both the peoners Balram and Ajay Kumar have already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 03 days and so, they deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by them. 8. Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer. 9. The custody cerficate placed on record by the respondent- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.29 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1753-2012 (O&M) -3- State would reveal that both the peoners Balram and Ajay Kumar have already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 03 days. Peoners Balram and Ajay Kumar were 40 and 42 years of age respecvely at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2004 i.e. 21 years back. 10. 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 peoners, instead of sending them behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 11. 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 peoners Balram and Ajay Kumar are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 12. 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 peoners will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 28, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.29 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document