Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh @ Hero vs State Of Punjab on 16 December, 2013
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRR-3487-2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3487-2013
Date of decision: 16.12.2013
Karnail Singh @ Hero
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.IS Mann, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab
****
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 14.10.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment /order dated 18.12.2012, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, convicting the petitioner under Section 13-A of Public Gambling Act, 1867 and sentencing rigorous imprisonment for a period of five months.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset states that he does not want to challenge the judgment of the conviction on merits. He further submits that the petitioner is 54 years of age and he is the sole bread earner of the family. He prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. The petitioner has Shanker Gauri 2013.12.18 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR-3487-2013 2 already undergone for a period of about two months.
3. Heard and perused.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another" observed as under:-
"26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment"
5. In another case titled as "Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana", 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16(1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special Shanker Gauri 2013.12.18 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR-3487-2013 3 reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents.
2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly"
6. In the present case, the petitioner has already undergone about two month imprisonment out of total five months sentence. He is 54 years of age and the sole bread earner of the family.
7. Keeping in view above and the period already undergone by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the sentence/imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner will meet Shanker Gauri 2013.12.18 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR-3487-2013 4 the ends of justice.
8. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also file an affidavit that in future, he will not indulge in any similar offence.
9. The revision petition stands partly allowed accordingly. If the petitioner is found indulge in any similar offence, the present petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.
16.12.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
gsv JUDGE
Shanker Gauri
2013.12.18 16:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh