RAJ BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, vide its judgment and order dated 1.2.1982 as under : - U/s 409 IPC R.I. for 2 -1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for 5 months. U/s 465 IPC R.I. for one year. The substantive sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the conviction under section 409 IPC was maintained but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to 1 1/4 years, keeping the sentence of fine intact. The conviction and sentence under section 465 IPC were also maintained by the appellate Court. Both these sentences of imprisonment were directed by the appellate Court to run concurrently.

(2.) MR . V.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner has not addressed on merits. He has, however, prayed for reduction in sentence on the ground that the petitioner is a first offender; that he has undergone 3 months 8 days of his substantive sentence and has also earned two month's remission, as permitted under the Jail Regulations and that the offence took place in the year 1976.

(3.) I have perused the record. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner is a previous convict. The offence took place in the year 1976 when he was working as a Upper Division Clerk in the Punjab State Electricity Board. He is on bail. He has lost his service. In my view, no useful purpose will be served in sending him again to jail after lapse of about 8 years to undergo the unexpired period of sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone and the sentence, of fine is maintained. It is ordered accordingly. Except for the alteration in the sentence, as indicated above, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.