CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sher Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 May 2012 · Citation: (2012) 05 P&H CK 0090

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nirmaljit Kaur, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 420
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRR No. 1002 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

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

18 paragraphs · 359 words

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a revision petition against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot as well as judgment dated 06.03.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2010, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:

Under Sections

RI

Fine

In default of payment of fine

420 IPC

To undergo imprisonment for one year

Rs.2000/-

To undergo imprisonment for 15 days.

473 IPC

-ditto

-ditto

-ditto-

2.

Thereafter, appeal preferred against his conviction and sentence has also been dismissed by the Appellate Court.

3.

Learned for the petitioner, at the very outset, did not argue the case on merit but alternatively prayed that since the petitioner is the only male member of his family and is suffering the agony of protracted trial since the year 2001 and no other case is pending against him, a lenient view may taken on the quantum of sentence.

4.

After going through the judgments rendered by the Courts below, the learned counsel has rightly not argued the case on merit.

5.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed and conviction of the petitioner is affirmed. However, this Court finds no reason as to why the alternative prayer cannot be granted.

6.

Custody certificate of the petitioner is already on record. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone five months and fourteen days out of total period of sentence of one year as on 22.05.2012. Thus, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is facing the agony of long trial since the year 2001 and has already undergone more than five months out of the total sentence of one year which is a substantial period of the sentence, ends of justice would be fully met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified and reduced to the period as having already undergone by him without any alternation in the sentence of fine. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed except for the modification in the sentence awarded to the petitioner as above.