CRR-1291-2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 206 AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1291-2012 (O&M) Decided on: 18.02.2026 Jaswant Singh ... Petitioner VS. State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 169 21.10.2004 City Sri Muktsar Sahib 406/420/34 IPC Case No. IPC Challan No.40-1 Date of decision: 17.10.2011 Names of accused/ convicts/ appellants Jaswant Singh Conviction under sections 420 IPC Sentence imposed RI for 03 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- Criminal Appeal No. Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib Date of decision: 09.04.2012 1. Challenging the judgment of conviction dated 17.10.2011 and order of sentence whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 months, under Section 420 IPC, which was challenged before the First Appellate Court and the same was affirmed vide judgment dated 09.04.2012, the petitioner, had come up before this Court by filing the present revision petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is facing litigations from the year 2004 and 18 years have already elapsed. He further submits that he would be contended and satisfied if the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. Counsel ANJU RANI 2026.02.26 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh


CRR-1291-2012 (O&M)
further submits that he has already mentioned mitigating factors that now the petitioner is 72 years old and when the offence was committed, he was 50 years of age, therefore as of date, the petitioner is not in good physical condition and suffering from various ailments. There is no other family member to support him and wife of the petitioner has already expired, as such he prayed for reduction of sentence. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that period of sentence undergone in this case is only 6 months and sentence could not be reduced from 03 years to the period already undergone. He further submits that similar plea was taken by the petitioner before the First Appellate Court, where the said prayer was rejected. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Perusal of the record reflects that the FIR was registered in the year 2004 and period of more than 20 years has already elapsed, petitioner is 72 years of age, which is more than life expectancy in India. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner for undergoing further incarceration. Perusal of the custody certificate also reflects that petitioner has clean antecedents except the present FIR and there is nothing on record that petitioner has repeated the offence or indulged in any crime. Period of custody undergone by the petitioner is 06 months & 04 days out of total sentence of 03 years and the petitioner is facing the present litigation from last more than 20 years, as such, judgment of conviction upheld and period of sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. Amount of fine which as per record, has already been deposited, forfeited to the State as cost. Surety bonds, if any furnished by the petitioner, stand discharged. 6. Present criminal revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 18.02.2026 Anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No ANJU RANI 2026.02.26 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh