Partly allowed

Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jul 2012CRR/2182/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition on grounds that the petitioner had already suffered protracted trial and the period served met the ends of justice. The court reduced the sentence to time already undergone, stayed execution, and directed the payment of compensation to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; petitioner directed to pay 25,000 as compensation to the complainant within three months; failure to pay deems revision dismissed.

Sarabjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRR No.2182 of 2003

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRR No.2182 of 2003

¶5

Date of decision : 17.07.2012

Sarabjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

********

¶13

Present: Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.

¶15

********

¶16

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

¶17

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sarabjit Singh, challenging judgment dated 14.10.2003, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, (for short, 'the first appellate Court')dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patiala, (for short, 'the trial Court') vide which the accused-petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year (u/s 304-A IPC) and 06 months (u/s 279 IPC). However, both the sentences were order to run concurrently.

¶18

CRR No.2182 of 2003

¶19

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that no leniency should be shown to the petitioner.

¶22

From the record, it is made out that the incident took place on 05.09.1997. The revision petition pertains to the year 2003. The petitioner has already suffered protracted trial.

¶23

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:-

¶24

“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”

¶25

CRR No.2182 of 2003

¶26

¶27

In another case titled as “ Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana” , 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

¶28

“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 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

The appeal is disposed of accordingly”

¶31

For the aforesaid special reasons, I am of the considered view that the sentence/imprisonment already undergone by the appellant will meet the ends of justice.

¶32

CRR No.2182 of 2003

¶33

¶34

Consequently, the conviction of the appellant, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by her subject to the payment of `25,000/- to the complainant as compensation, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The said amount be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, to be paid to the complainant.

¶35

In case, the appellant fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of compensation in the Court of learned CJM, Patiala, within the period stipulated above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the petitioner shall have to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The impugned sentence order stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶36

This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

17.07.2012

¶38

atulsethi

¶39

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶40

Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes / No.

Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Krishan K. Mittal and Comapny Vs M/S Ludhiana Moulding Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Des Raj Vs State of Punjab etc.

Anju Bala Vs Bikramjit Singh and Ors.

Ut of Chandigarh Vs Bhajan Singh

Kuldip Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Tariklon etc. Vs State of Punjab