Ram Kumar vs State of Haryana

Sat Pal, J.(Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) and is directed against the judgment dated 6.3.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak and the judgment dated 27.7.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak.

The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 6.3.1995 convicted the petitioners under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced both the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 27.7.1995 upheld the conviction of the petitioners but reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioners from 3 years to 1 year rigorous imprisonment each. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained.

Notice of this petition was issued on 9.8.1995 but the notice was confined only on the point of sentence. During the pendency of the petition, duplicate certificate issued by the school concerned with regard to petitioner No. 1Ram Kumar has been filed. This certificate indicates that the said petitioner was below the age of 16 on the date of occurrence.

Mr. Hooda, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner had been facing trial for the last over 7 years. He further submits that this is the first offence committed by the petitioners. With regard to petitioner No. 1, he submits that the point with regard to his age was taken up before the First Appellate Court as is evident from para 9 of the judgment. He submits that this point can be taken even before the High Court and the original certificate containing the age of the said appellant can be considered even at this stage. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopi Nath Gosh v. State of West Bengal, 1984(1) CLR 697. The learned counsel contended that a lenient view can be taken in the matter and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to 1 year already undergone.

Mr. Dewan, learned AAG Haryana, however, submits that the First Appellate Court had already taken a lenient view in the matter and has already reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioners.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioners had been facing trial for a period over 7 years and this is the first offence which has been committed by both the petitioners. From these facts, I find that the right to speedy trial of the petitioners appears to have been infringed. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to one already undergone. The view I have taken finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swaroop Chand v. State of Punjab. Accordingly I reduce the sentence awarded to each of the petitioners, to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine is, however, sustained. With this modification of sentence as stated herein, the petition is dismissed.