IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 206 CRR-21-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision.:12.05.2025 Sandeep …..Pe..oner Vs. State of Haryana .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner Sandeep was tried by Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon (Jind) in a case arising out of FIR No.260 dated 08.06.2007 under Secons 148, 452, 323, 325, 149 of the IPC registered at Police Staon Safidon. A9er trial, the peoner was convicted under Secons 323 and 452 of the IPC vide judgment dated 27.03.2012 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo maximum sentence for one year simple imprisonment and to pay fine of maximum ₹2,000/- with default sentence of 01 month 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 learned Sessions Judge, Jind vide judgment dated 05.11.2012. 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this revision peon was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the peoner stated at the outset that peoner does not press the peon against the judgment of convicon; and that peoner confines their prayer only against order of sentence. It is submiBed 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 2007; that peoner has already undergone actual sentence of 03 months and 14 days and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.13 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-21-2013 (O&M) sentenced for the period already undergone by them. 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 Sandeep has already undergone actual sentence of 03 months and 14 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a9er his convicon, the peoner has been involved in any other case. 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 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. 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. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE May 12, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.13 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document