2010:PHHC:060231 CRR-10-2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205-I CRR-10-2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 Sohan Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER MALIK Present:- Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ***** RAVINDER MALIK, J. (Oral) 1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2008/07.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, in case FIR No.72 dated 02.02.1998 under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 120- B IPC, Police Station City Jagadhri, was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court as under:- Under Section Sentence 419 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.550/- each in default of payment of fine to further undergone rigorous imprisonment for 04 months. 466 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 months. 468 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to KAPIL 2026.09.02 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2010:PHHC:060231 CRR-10-2010(O&M) 2 further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 04 months. 120-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court transpires that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 466 IPC was upheld, whereas the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months awarded by the learned trial court was modified and enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 3. Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and has filed on record his Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. He submits that sentence awarded to the petitioner had been suspended vide order dated 06.04.2010 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. Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate dated 26.08.2026, which is taken on record. A perusal of the said custody certificate reveals that the petitioner has undergone actual custody for a period of 01 month and 29 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 assistance. KAPIL 2026.09.02 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2010:PHHC:060231 CRR-10-2010(O&M) 3 6. The object of punishment 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 principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion in the matter of sentencing. 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, emphasise that while determining the appropriate sentence, the Court is required to consider factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, 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 fulfil 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 KAPIL 2026.09.02 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2010:PHHC:060231 CRR-10-2010(O&M) 4 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 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 KAPIL 2026.09.02 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2010:PHHC:060231 CRR-10-2010(O&M) 5 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 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. ”. KAPIL 2026.09.02 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2010:PHHC:060231 CRR-10-2010(O&M) 6 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP reported as AIR 2017 SC 1166, that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed 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 retributive 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 reformation 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 offence, the offender’s background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the deterrent needs of the community. Sentencing, the Court noted, involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social, psychological, 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 27.10.2009 passed by the KAPIL 2026.09.02 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2010:PHHC:060231 CRR-10-2010(O&M) 7 learned Appellate Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 419, 466, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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 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 02.02.1998 and the petitioner has remained embroiled in the ordeal of a prolonged criminal trial for a span of more than 27 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 around 75 years of age and is in the fag end of his life 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 month and 29 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, the advanced age of the petitioner, his conduct during the period subsequent to registration of the FIR, the absence of any other KAPIL 2026.09.02 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2010:PHHC:060231 CRR-10-2010(O&M) 8 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 undergone by him. 14. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 419, 466, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the substantive sentence awarded to him is modified and reduced to the period 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 retained. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. 15 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (RAVINDER MALIK) August 27, 2026 JUDGE Kapil Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No KAPIL 2026.09.02 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document