Milakh Singh @ Mattu vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 1684 P&H

CRR-1364-2017                                                     -1-


237    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                    CRR-1364-2017
                                                    Decided on : 25.01.2023

Milakh Singh @ Mattu                                       ...... Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Punjab                                            ...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present :   Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                         ****

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)

Instant revision petition has been preferred against the

judgment dated 29.03.2016 passed by JMIC, Fazilka vide which the

accused-petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months

alongwith payment of fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months alongwith

payment of fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC. In default of payment

of fine, petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of one month. The order of conviction was affirmed by the

Appellate Court vide judgment dated 06.03.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that in

view of the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, he would

not press the instant revision petition on merits and would instead restrict

1 of 3

his prayer qua the sentence only. Learned counsel submits that the

occurrence in question pertains to the year 2013 and the petitioner has thus,

suffered the agony of trial for the last 09 years. Learned counsel further

submits that the petitioner was released on bail after his arrest and it was a

matter of record that during the preceding 09 years, he has not neem

involved in any other criminal case much less a case of similar nature. It

has also been submitted that during the preceding years, the petitioner has

been fastened with many responsibilities. A prayer, therefore, has been

made that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a lenient view be taken

and the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court be

reduced to already undergone as no useful purpose would be served by

sending the petitioner behind bars.

The custody certificate, which has been filed by the State

counsel today in Court, does not reflect the involvement of the petitioner in

any other criminal case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant

material available on record.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well

as the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the

considered view that ends of justice would be met, if while maintaining the

conviction of the petitioner his substantive sentence of six months is

reduced to the sentence already undergone by him in the present case. The

amount of fine Rs.500/- awarded under Sections 279 IPC imposed upon the

petitioner by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.1,000/-. It is made clear that

in case of non-deposit of fine with the trial/successor Court within a period

2 of 3

of two months from the date of this order, benefit of reduction of sentence

shall not accrue to the petitioner and he will be required to undergo the

remaining part of the sentence awarded to him.

With these modifications, the present petition stands disposed

of.

                                              (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
                                                      JUDGE
25.01.2023
sonia

             Whether speaking/reasoned:             Yes/No
             Whether reportable :                   Yes/No




                                     3 of 3