CRR-1590-2008 (O&M) 1 212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1590-2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.07.2026 Nirmal Singh ...Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate and Mr. Vishesh Jain, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. *** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J. The present criminal revision petition challenges the judgments dated 23.08.2003 and 11.08.2008, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 15 (2) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and his appeal was dismissed, however, the sentence of fine was reduced to Rs.1000/-. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.10.2000, a medical police team led by Dr.Prem Nath (Sr.Medical Officer) raided Sandhu Hospital (Shaheed Amar Singh Sandhu Charitable Hospital) on Ber Sahib Road, Sultanpur Lodhi. At the time of the raid, co-accused Jaspreet Sandhu was present and produced a registration certificate of a third person, namely, Dr. Jagjit Singh to mislead authoritites. The team recovered a large stock of allopathic medicines, surgical instruments and photographs showing the petitioner conducting surgeries. It was alleged that as Nirmal Singh-petitioner possessed only a B.E.M.S. (Bachelor of Electropathy Medicine and Surgery) Certificate, which did not VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-1590-2008 (O&M) 2 authoritized him to practice modern allopathic medicine or perform surgeries. Thus, the FIR No.54 dated 05.09.2003 was registered under Section 15(2) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi. 3. A trial was proceeded where the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 23.08.2003 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 15(2) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 4. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2003 an appeal was preferred before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. The appellate Court found that there is no valid reason to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and vide judgment dated 11.08.2008 dismissed the same, however, the sentence of fine was reduced to Rs.1000/-. Thus, the present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against both the judgments. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that in a hospital owned by him, allopathic medicines and surgical equipments were recovered. It is alleged that the hospital did not have licence to keep allopathic medicines. The petitioner is a Bachelor of Electro-Homeopathy Medicine and Surgery. The petitioner had employed qualified doctors in the hospital. He also contends that there is no allegation or any complaint that any patient was wrongly treated or spurious medicine was administered or sold to anyone. He also contends that there is no independent witness to the recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that out of the substantive sentence awarded, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 03 months and 15 days and has remained on bail VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-1590-2008 (O&M) 3 pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence, the petitioner's has clean antecedents, and is not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 07.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present petition be dismissed on merits. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 8. A bare perusal of the material available on record reveals that FIR No.54 dated 05.09.2003 under Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was registered against the petitioner. Upon conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 23.08.2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 11.08.2008, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged both the aforesaid judgments by filing the present Criminal Revision Petition in the year 2008. VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-1590-2008 (O&M) 4 9. As per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2003 and the present case has come up for hearing today i.e. 09.07.2026, where the petitioner has already faced a protracted criminal proceedings of more than 23 years and at the time of registration of FIR in 2003, he was 37 years of age and today he is 60 years of age. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that any patient was wrongly treated or spurious medicine was administered or sold to anyone. 10. While considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 07.07.2026, the petitioner has already undergone more than three months of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of one year's simple imprisonment. These factors deserve due weight while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court. 11. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-1590-2008 (O&M) 5 conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.” 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one. In the present case as well, the allegation against the petitioner is that he possessed only a B.E.M.S certificate, which did not authorize him to practice modern allopathic medicine or perform surgeries. 13. Given the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-1590-2008 (O&M) 6 is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today. 14. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner stand discharged. 15. It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the petitioner will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence. 16. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such. (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 09.07.2026 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No VANITA 2026.07.13 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment