JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. (Oral) - Devinder Singh petitioner-herein was convicted and sentenced by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment/order dated 19/23.10.1989 as under : U/S 452 Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine suffer further RI for one month. U/S 324 Indian Penal Code RI for six months. U/S 323 Indian Penal Code RI for three months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated December 14, 1989. Hence this revision. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution story runs thus : On 30.7.1987 around 10.30 PM, Atma Singh (injured) was lying on a cot in his Haveli. His nephew-Jai Singh was lying on a separate cot just close to him. The petitioner appeared there with a naked Kirpan and exhorted Atma Singh that he would teach him a lesson for having not recommended his case of damages (Kharaba) on account of heavy rains. Atma Singh woke up and sat on his cot. The petitioner gave him injuries. The matter was reported to the police. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was challaned under Sections 325/324/323/452 Indian Penal Code. After appreciation of the entire evidence on record, he was, however, convicted and sentenced under Sections 452/324/323 Indian Penal Code. 4. I have heard Mr. A.S. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B.K. Mann, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance I have gone through the entire record minutely. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and has confined his submissions on the point of sentence only. 6. Although the conviction as recorded by the Courts below has not been assailed on merits, yet I have minutely perused the judgments of both the Courts below and am of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. His conviction is thus upheld. 7. On the question of quantum of sentence, Mr. His conviction is thus upheld. 7. On the question of quantum of sentence, Mr. Kalra, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already faced the agony of protracted trial for over 16 years; that he has remained in custody for a total period of 38 days; that the petitioner and the injured are from the same village; during the interregnum, no other untoward incident has happened and both the sides are living peacefully. Relying heavily on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays for a lenient view qua the quantum of sentence. 8. Opposing the submissions, Ms. Mann, learned State counsel contends that the petitioner does no deserves any leniency towards the quantum of sentence as he had entered the haveli of the injured and gave him injuries with a sharp edged weapon. 9. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Their Lordship of the Apex Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161 observed as under : "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned, to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the Court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation has to be avoided again within the permissible limits of law." 11. In Bohar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 387 this Court while maintaining conviction under Section 326/324/34 Indian Penal Code, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was 61 days. The incident was 13 years old. In the present case the incident is also more than 16 years old. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the instant case, I feel that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- as awarded by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- as compensation to be paid to the injured-Atma Singh. This enhanced amount shall be deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case of default of payment of amount, the petitioner would undergone RI for one month. 13. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the revision stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.