1 CRR-2781-2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203 CRR-2781-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 Ajaib Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER MALIK Present:- Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate and Ms. Arzoo Modi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab. (through V.C.) ***** RAVINDER MALIK, J. (Oral) 1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, challeng- ing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar, in case FIR No.205 dated 30.08.2008 under Sections 406, 420 of IPC at Police Station Shahkot, was dismissed. The petitioner was con- victed and sentenced by the learned trial court as under:- Under Sec- tion Sentence 420 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. KUMARI SAPNA 2026.09.10 15.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRR-2781-2009 (O&M) 2. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Appel- late Court transpires that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 of IPC was upheld. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sentence awarded to the petitioner had been suspended vide order dated 25.11.2009 passed by this Court. He further submits that he does not wish to press the instant petition on merits and confines his prayer only to the quantum of punishment and sentence imposed by the trial Court. He prays that the sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone. 4. A perusal of the custody certificate dated 15.08.2026 filed by the learned State counsel reveals that the petitioner has under- gone actual custody for a period of 01 year and 10 days. He, however, submits that he has no objection in case the prayer for reduction in sentence to that of already undergone is considered. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents available on record with their able assis- tance. 6. The object of penal law is not only to punish but also to rehabilitate the offenders in society. Where an accused reflects a strong possibility of improvement by his reformative behaviour, the process of law should come to the aid of such an accused and ensure his reintegration into society. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain princi- ples governing the exercise of judicial discretion in the matter of sen- KUMARI SAPNA 2026.09.10 15.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRR-2781-2009 (O&M) tencing. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar & Ors’., (2008) 7 SCC 550. The principles enunciated therein, inter alia, em- phasise that while determining the appropriate sentence, the Court is required to consider factors including the nature and gravity of the of- fence, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the mental state and age of the accused, the sociological backdrop of the accused, as also the requirements of proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation so as to fulfill the broader object of criminal law. The discretion vested in the Court in the matter of sentencing is required to be exercised judiciously to uphold justice. 8. The said issue was also examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Soman Vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 11 SCC 382, the relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “15. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is at the heart of the criminal justice delivery, but in our country, it is the weakest part of the administration of criminal justice. There are no legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the trial court in meting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges. In State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008) 7 SCC 550, this Court acknowledged as much and observed as under – “2. In our judicial system, we have not been able to develop legal principles as regards sentencing. The superior courts except making observations with regard to the purport and object for which KUMARI SAPNA 2026.09.10 15.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CRR-2781-2009 (O&M) punishment is imposed upon an offender, have not issued any guidelines. Other developed countries have done so. At some quarters, serious concerns have been expressed in this behalf. Some committees as for example Madhava Menon Committee and Malimath Committee have advocated introduction of sentencing guidelines.” 16. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of this Court carefully, it would appear that this Court takes into account a combination of different factors while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation etc. 17. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness. The question is whether the consequences of the offence can be taken as the measure for determining its harmfulness? In addition, quite apart from the seriousness of the offence, can the consequences of an offence be a legitimate aggravating (as opposed to mitigating) factor while awarding a sentence? Thus, to understand the relevance of consequences of criminal conduct from a sentencing standpoint, one must examine: (1) whether such consequences enhanced the harmfulness of the offence; and (2) whether they are an aggravating factor that need to be taken into account by the courts while deciding on the sentence. xxx xxx xxx 26. Punishment should acknowledge the sanctity of KUMARI SAPNA 2026.09.10 15.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CRR-2781-2009 (O&M) human life. We fully agree. 27. From the above, one may conclude that: 27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales – most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence. 27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint. 27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it. 27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor. ”. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP reported as AIR 2017 SC 1166, that opportu- nities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exer- cised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by notic- ing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was com- KUMARI SAPNA 2026.09.10 15.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CRR-2781-2009 (O&M) mitted and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. In order to determine the quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in mind the principle of proportionality as awarding punishment is not merely re- tributive but also reformative. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment must not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reforma- tion and reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that an appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the of- fence, the offender’s background, age, mental and emotional condi- tion, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the deter- rent needs of the community. Sentencing, the Court noted, involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social, psycho- logical, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure that justice serves both societal protection and individual redemption. 11. Since at the very outset, challenge to the conviction of the petitioner has been given up by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf, therefore, the judgment dated 16.10.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 of IPC, is affirmed. 12. Now, the issue that falls for consideration before this Court is confined to the quantum of sentence and whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence imposed upon the KUMARI SAPNA 2026.09.10 15.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CRR-2781-2009 (O&M) petitioner calls for modification. In this regard, certain mitigating circumstances borne out from the record deserve to be taken into consideration. The present FIR was registered as far back as on 30.08.2008 and the petitioner has remained embroiled in the ordeal of a prolonged criminal trial for a span of more than 17 years. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner was not involved in any other criminal offence and there is also no material on record to hold that the petitioner indulged in any such or similar offence after registration of the FIR or at any time after suspension of his sentence. The petitioner has been stated to be more than 43 years of age and the offence in question is not of such gravity as to deprave public health or shock the societal conscience. 13. Taking into consideration the aforesaid mitigating circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of 01 year and 10 days out of the total sentence of 02 years imposed by the learned trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the present case warrants a reduction in the substantive sentence. The prolonged pendency of the criminal proceedings, his conduct during the period subsequent to registration of the FIR, the absence of any other criminal involvement as reflected in the custody certificate and the period of incarceration already undergone are circumstances which, when cumulatively considered, justify taking a lenient view on the question of sentence. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the ends of justice would be adequately met by modifying the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period already KUMARI SAPNA 2026.09.10 15.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CRR-2781-2009 (O&M) undergone by him. 14. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 of IPC, the substantive sentence awarded to him is modified and reduced to the period actually already undergone by the petitioner. The fine imposed by the learned trial court, along with the sentence imposed in default of payment thereof, shall remain intact. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. His bail bond(s), if any, stand(s) discharged. Trial Court record be sent back. Registry is directed to do the needful. 15 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (RAVINDER MALIK) September 03, 2026 JUDGE sapna adhikari Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No KUMARI SAPNA 2026.09.10 15.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document