204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-452-2012 Date of Decision: May 13, 2025 Gurmit Singh … Pe..oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Pallavi Bahre, Advocate for Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Advocate for the peoner. Ms. Prabha Bali, AAG, Punjab. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Peoner - Gurmit Singh along with one Jagsir Singh faced trial under Secon 406 IPC in a case arising out of FIR No.102 dated 18.03.2008, registered at Police Staon City Faridkot, on the allegaon that during execuon proceedings, tled as "Sant Ram v. Jagsir Singh" property of J.D. - Jagsir Singh was a5ached. The goods of J.D. - Jagsir Singh were released on superdari to peoner - Gurmit Singh. The allegaon is that peoner misappropriated those goods and did not produce the same in the Court. A7er trial, peoner was convicted under Secon 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year with fine of `300/- with default sentence of 07 days. The appeal filed by the peoner was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment dated 31.01.2012. 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this revision was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the peoner stated at the outset that peoner does not press the present revision peon against the judgment of convicon; and that peoner confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi5ed that peoner would be sasfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. Sarita Rani 2025.05.13 17:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRR-452-2012 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:063251 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2008; that peoner was young person of 42 years at that me; that peoner has already undergone total sentence of 27 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 total sentence of 27 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a7er this convicon, peoner has been involved in any other case. He was young a person of 42 years of age at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2008 i.e. 17 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 appeal 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. 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. Disposed of. May 13, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.05.13 17:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order