Bir Singh Alias Beda Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.: 245 Criminal Revision No.709 of 2016 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 10, 2016 Bir Singh @ Beda Singh ..... PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Haryana ..... RESPONDENT . . .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL Singh . . .

PRESENT: - Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

. . .

Jaspal Singh, J 1.

By virtue of this petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence awarded to him under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, 'Act') vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated August 8, 2014 whereby he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year besides fine to the tune of ` 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days for contravention of provisions contained under Section 3 of the Act. However, in appeal preferred by the petitioner before the court of Sessions, though his conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced from RI for one year to RI for six months with no change in fine and default clause, vide judgment dated February 11, 2016. Avin Kumar 2016.08.17 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Revision No.709 of 2016 [2] 2.

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition.

3.

At the time of issuance of notice of motion, on February 19, 2016, this court passed the following order:- 4.

A perusal of the aforesaid order transpires that petitioner did not challenge his conviction. However, he only intended to consider various circumstances in the matter of sentence it being on the higher side. 5.

Today, at the very outset, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already undergone a period of more than six months for which he was sentenced by the lower appellate court. Custody certificate furnished by learned State counsel also transpires that petitioner has undergone more than six months as on today. Thus, in the given circumstances, this court is of the considered view that instant petition has rendered infructuous, especially in the circumstances that fine imposed upon the petitioner has already been paid/ deposited before the trial court. 6.

Accordingly, instant petition stands disposed of. (Jaspal Singh) August 10, 2016 Judge avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned:

Yes/ No Whether Reportable:

Yes/ No Avin Kumar 2016.08.17 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document