IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 205 CRR-4057-2013 Date of Decision.:26.03.2025 Suresh Kumar …..Pe//oner Vs. State of Haryana .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Shivani, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner Suresh Kumar was tried by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani in a case arising out of FIR No.461 dated 10.08.2007 under Secons 279, 304-A of the IPC registered at Police Staon City, Bhiwani. A5er trial, the peoner was convicted under Secons 279, 304-A of the IPC vide judgment dated 07.05.2012 by the trial Court and was sentenced as under: 279 IPC Simple imprisonment for a period of 02 months and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 15 days simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 304-A IPC Simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of 02 months simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. Both substanve sentences were directed to run concurrently. Appeal filed by accused was dismissed by Appellate Court on 19.11.2013. 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this revision was filed. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.27 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-4057-2013 -2- 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 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 2007; that peoner was of 49 years of age at that me; that peoner has already undergone actual sentence of 03 months and 24 days 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 03 months and 24 days. He was 49 years of age at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2007 i.e. 18 years back. Thus, by now he is not less than 67 years of age. The custody cerficate further reveals that though appellant is involved in one more case registered against him in 2010 but he was bailed out in the same in March, 2014. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will not be in the interest of jusce to send the peoner behind bars at advanced stage, considering that his sentence was suspended wayback in March, 2014 i.e. 11 years back. Considering all the circumstances, the impugned judgment of convicon recorded by the trial Court and as affirmed by the Appellate Court, is hereby dismissed as withdrawn, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the peoner. 8. However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned, the said order is hereby modified, by reducing the period of imprisonment of the peoner to the period already undergone by him, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.27 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-4057-2013 -3- instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 9. Consequently, the present 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. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE March 26, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.27 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document