Jaswinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—The petitioner was convicted by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot vide judgment dated 8.10.2010 for an offence u/s 498-A IPC and was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 16.2.2012.

The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition challenging the aforesaid judgments of the Courts below.

Today, the custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed in Court by the learned State counsel which is taken on record. According to the aforesaid custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of about 3 months and 7 days'' of actual sentence out of a total period of one year.

At the outset it may be noticed that counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the findings of the Courts below with regard to conviction of the petitioner and has confined the arguments only to the extent of reducing the sentence of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is facing the agony of trial for the last 6 years and has also undergone a substantial part of sentence out of the total sentence imposed upon him.

Sh. Binderjit Singh, Advocate has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish versus State of Haryana 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 229 wherein it is observed that though minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act yet the same can be reduced considering the long pendency of such proceedings.

It may also be useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in Chander Bhan versus State of Haryana 1996 (1) RCR (Criminal) 125 wherein it has been observed that keeping in view the Article 21 of the Constitution of India qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony by releasing him without serving minimum sentence prescribed under the Act.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already undergone a period of 3 months and 7 days'' of actual sentence out of a total period of one year.

Thus, keeping in view the judgments cited above and the facts of the case, I deem it fit to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

But for the aforesaid modification, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Needless to say that conviction recorded by the Courts below is maintained.