203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-444-2012 Date of Decision: May 15, 2025 Subhash Chand and another …Pe..oners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the peoners. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) The two peoners, namely, Subhash Chand and Ramesh were tried by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, under Secon 420 IPC and Secon 7/10/55 of Essenal Commodies Act, in a case arising out of FIR No.100 dated 29.08.2001, registered at Police Staon Sadar Yamuna Nagar. A7er trial, he was convicted and sentenced as under:- Sr. No. Offence u/s Sentence (S.I) Fine Further sentence in case of non-payment of fine 1. 7 of the Commodies Act 01 year `1,000/- S.I. for 01 month 2. 420 IPC 01 year `1,000/- S.I. for 01 month Both the substanve sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the peoners was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment dated 25.01.2012. 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this revision was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the peoners stated at the outset that peoners do not press the present revision peon against the judgment of convicon; and that peoners confine 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. Sarita Rani 2025.05.16 14:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRR-444-2012 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:065271 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2001; that peoners were young persosns at that me; that peoners have already undergone total sentence of 03 months and 28 days and are not involved in any other case and so, they deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by them. 5. Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer. 6. The custody cerficates placed on record by the respondent- State would reveal that peoners have already undergone total custody sentence of 03 months and 28 days. It is revealed further that they have no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a7er this convicon, peoners have been involved in any other case. They were young persons at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2001 i.e. 24 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 peoners, instead of sending them behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 8. 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 are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 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 peoners will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of. May 15, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.05.16 14:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order