JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: (Oral): - Petitioner is a convict and undergoing sentence in case FIR No.187/03, under Section 376(2)(g), 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dadri City in district Jail Bhiwani. 2. The petitioner was released on parole vide order dated 25.06.2007 for a period of six weeks. After having been so released, he had to surrender on the dated fixed. Thus, he was charge sheeted and convicted under Sections 8 and 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Releases) Act, 1988. 3. The Judicial Magistrate lst Class, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani vide judgment dated 12.08.2010 has convicted the petitioner and vide order dated 13.08.2010 has sentenced the petitioner and vide order dated 13.08.2010 has sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 4. The aforesaid judgment of Judicial Magistrate lst Class has been affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide order dated 21.12.2011. 5. The aforesaid orders are under challenge in the instant revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the findings of the Court below on the question of an offence committed by the petitioner jumping the parole and not surrendering on the date fixed. However, he has prayed for taking a lenient view and reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders/judgments attached with this petitioner. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is undergoing rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(g), 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and had jumped the parole granted to him and has failed to surrender on the date fixed. Plea of illness taken by the petitioner is not supported by any evidence. 9. Keeping in view the offence committed by him and further the fact that after getting the benefit of discretion exercised is his favour, he has failed to respect the Court orders. 10. In view of the facts as explained above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned orders/judgments of the Court below. Dismissed. --------------