High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 11 P&H CK 0068

Paramjit and another vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 11 November 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ranjit Singh, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 862 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 358 words

Ranjit Singh, J.—This revision.has been filed by Paramjit Singh and Ram Ji Dass to impugn their conviction for an offence u/s 353 IPC, for

which they were imposed a punishment of 6 months rigorous imprisonment in addition to fine of Rs. 500/-. The petitioners were to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 7 days in default of payment of fine.

2.

The petitioners were stopped by the Deputy DFO Dasuya and questioned to show permit in respect of the wood loaded in the truck. The

petitioners evaded to answer and subsequently, started giving abuses. They allegedly grappled with the DFO also. On this basis, FIR was lodged

leading to the conviction and sentence as imposed.

3.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner-Paramjit Singh has undergone a period of 1 month and 17 days out of the rigorous

imprisonment of 6 months as imposed. Petitioner No.2-Ram Ji Dass has also undergone the similar custody period. Counsel submits that it is an

old case and the incident is of 31.12.1997. The petitioners were tried and convicted on 17.12.2002. Their appeal was decided on 29.3.2005 and

since then, the present petition is pending. As per the counsel, no purpose would be served making the petitioners to undergo the sentence and he

accordingly, pleads for leniency. Counsel submits that the petitioners have learnt their lesson and would not ever indulge in such activity or action in

future. They will always respect the law and the public servant.

4.

Since the petitioners have shown repentance, a case for showing some leniency is made out. Requiring the petitioners now to undergo the

remaining sentence would hardly serve any purpose instead may retard the efforts to reform themselves and be a good member of the society. The

petitioners will have to remain in the company of hardened criminals. No other purpose may be achieved by sending the petitioners in custody.

Considering the totality of the circumstances and having regard to the allegations made, a case is made out for reducing the sentence imposed to

the period already undergone. The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed to this limited extent. Otherwise, the revision shall stand dismissed on

merits.