IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 205 CRR-4101-2012 Date of Decision.:01.04.2025 Ajaib Singh @ Rimpi …..Pe..oner Vs. State of Haryana .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Shivani Sahni, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner Ajaib Singh @ Rimpi was tried by Ld. Addional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad in a case arising out of FIR No.82 dated 24.02.2005 under Secons 279 and 304-A of the IPC registered at Police Staon City, Fatehabad. A6er trial, the peoner was convicted as under: Under Secon 279 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 15 days rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine Under Secon 304-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 15 days rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine Both the substanve sentences were ordered to run concurrently. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.01 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-4101-2012 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the peoner stated at the outset that peoner does not press the appeal 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. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2005; that peoner was 37 years at that me; that peoner has already undergone actual sentence of 04 months and 08 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 actual custody sentence of 04 months and 08 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a6er this convicon, peoner has been involved in any other case. He was 37 years of age at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2005 i.e. 20 years back. Thus, by now he is not less than 57 years of age. 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 appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convicon, the order of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.01 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-4101-2012 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 the fine is concerned, it will remain same. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 01, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.01 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document