SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 10th December, 2003, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.56/03, 63/03, 64/03, 65/03, whereby the learned Judge while upholding the order on conviction dated 4.10.1999 passed by the trial Court, has reduced the sentence to RI for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 448 IPC, though maintaining the sentence of RI for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 427 IPC and RI for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 506/34 IPC in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months in each section as awarded by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 6.10.1999. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) As per the letter No.F.2/SCJ-2/CJ- 2/AS(CT)/2005/3759 dated 30th May, 2005 of the Superintendent, Central Jail No.2, Tihar, New Delhi, the Petitioner No.1 has already completed the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. As such, the Revision Petition against him is abated.

(3.) With the assistance of learned Counsel for the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Counsel for the State I have gone through the material on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 submits that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction on merit. I, therefore, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the occurrence is of 1987 and the Petitioners have already suffered the rigors of trial for more than eighteen years. He submits that the Petitioners are on bail since 19th December, 2003. The petitioner-Habans Singh has undergone 13 days and the petitioner-Rajinder Prasad has undergone 13 days of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them. He further submits that there has been no complaint about their having belied the trust bestowed upon them by this Court. He also submits that the Petitioners are also not previous convicts and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of the society as useful citizens, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in requiring them to undergo the remaining portion of their sentence at this belated stage. Learned Counsel for the State has no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is reduced to the period already undergone.