CRR-3268-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 259 CRR-3268-2012 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Kanta Devi ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Ms. Vibhuti Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab **** H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 05.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby petitioner has been convicted under Sections 418, 419, 468, 471 120-B IPC for impersonating herself as Santosh Kumari-deceased and fraudulently sold her land and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years along with fine. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Gian Chand, son of Munshi Ram, resident of Village Nurpur, had died leaving behind his widow, Harbans Devi; his sons, Ram Lubhaya and Joginder Pal; and his daughters, Santosh Kumari, Kanta Devi, and Darshna Devi, as his legal heirs. Santosh Kumari had predeceased the execution of the sale deed, having died on 26.10.1994. Gian Chand was the owner of 10 marlas of land comprised in Khata No. 86/103, Khasra No. 13//13/2, situated in Village Koonta. Upon his death, the said ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-3268-2012 2 property devolved upon all his legal heirs by way of inheritance. It is the further case of the prosecution that, since Santosh Kumari had already expired, her share in the inherited property could not have been transferred without the consent of her legal heirs. However, all the accused allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently dispose of her share. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused No. 3, Kanta Devi, allegedly impersonated herself as Santosh Kumari before the Sub-Registrar, Bhunga, and got a sale deed executed and registered in respect of Santosh Kumari's share in the land, thereby dishonestly and fraudulently transferring the same. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to the period as already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone for a period of 03 months and 06 days (as reflected in the custody certificate). He further prays that since the complaint in question pertains to the year 2000, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order/ judgment by this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant as mentioned hereinabove and submits that the learned Court below has passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. He has filed the custody certificate of the appellant in which he has undergone for the period of 03 months and 06 days. ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-3268-2012 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 6. The appellant has been convicted for fraudulently sold the land of Santosh Kumari deceased. Moreover, the complaint in the present case pertains to the year 2000 and the appellant has already faced the rigours of the trial for more than 25 years. 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP”, (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, the manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 8. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, has held that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose, as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realize the damage caused not only to the victim, but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled 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 conduct of the ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-3268-2012 4 accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. 9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant. 10. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 418, 419, 468, 471, 120B IPC and keeping in view the fact the complaint pertains to the year 2000 and now she is 70 years old and facing rigours of trial since 2000, therefore, while taking a lenient view, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. In view of above, the revision petition is disposed of by upholding the judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Court; however, the order of sentence dated 05.09.2012 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence as already undergone by him. The fine be deposited within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (H.S. GREWAL) 20.07.2026 JUDGE anil Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document