IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 204 CRR-1274-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 25.04.2025 Kewal Singh …..Pe11oner Vs. State of Punjab .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. R.K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner Kewal Singh was tried by Ld. Addional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala in a case arising out of FIR No.114 dated 24.04.1999 under Secons 279, 337, 304-A, 427 IPC and 188 M.V. Act registered at Police Staon Kotwali, Barnala. A7er trial, the peoner was convicted under Secons 279 IPC, 304-A IPC and 337 IPC vide judgment dated 02.05.2003 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 01 month imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine under Secon 279 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of 02 months imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine under Secon 304-A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 01 month imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine under Secon 337 IPC. 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this revision was filed. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.25 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1274-2005 (O&M) 3. Learned counsel for the peoner submits that peoner is no longer in his contact as he had taken his brief. Nobody else had put in appearance on behalf of the peoner. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court and finds that convicon has been recorded a7er proper appreciaon of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the impugned judgment of convicon and as such, the same is hereby maintained. 4. However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned it is noced that peoner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 01 month imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine under Secon 279 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of 02 months imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine under Secon 304-A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 01 month imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine under Secon 337 IPC. 5. The custody cerficate placed on record by the respondent- State would reveal that peoner has already undergone actual custody sentence of 01 month and 17 days. He was 50 years of age at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 1999 i.e. 26 years back. Thus, by now he is not less than 76 years of age. Custody cerficate further indicates that peoner is not involved in any other criminal case. 6. 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. 7. Consequently, the present revision is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convicon, the order of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.25 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1274-2005 (O&M) sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the peoner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 8. 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 April 25, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.25 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document