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
5 paragraphs · 203 wordsR.L. Anand, J.—I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record of the case.
Shri Ghai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has not assailed the conviction, but has only prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence in view of the fact that the recovery was effected as far back as on 23rd March, 1983. The counsel submitted that his client is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings for the last more than 20 years and he may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence.
The counsel appearing for the respondent has no serious objection if the substantive sentence is reduced.
In view of the fact and the circumstances of case and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is suffering the rigour of the criminal proceedings for the last more than 20 years, I am of the opinion that the substantive sentence of the petitioner may be reduced and the same is hereby reduced to one year. So far as imposition of fine is concerned, it is hereby maintained.
With this reduction and modification of sentence, the revision stands disposed of.