AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 133 wordsR.L. Anand, J.—The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction aspect. He has only prayed that the petition may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence as the occurrence took place as back as on 4.7.1987. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no serious objection if some relief is granted to the petitioner in the matter of sentence.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings since 1987, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to 4 months. Order accordingly. The imposition of fine is not disturbed.
With this modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of.