1682 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 307 MALKIAT KAUR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- Present: RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. passed by learned JMIC, Mansa, petitioners, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.2018 26.05.2025 passed by the order of learned JMIC, Mansa was upheld and the appeal has been dismissed, in complaint under Sections of IPC read with Section 120 2. Kaur and Gurnam Singh, moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Jit Singh and his wife (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MALKIAT KAUR Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) This revision is filed against the judgment dated passed by learned JMIC, Mansa, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioners, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 16.11.2018, passed by learned JMIC, Mansa and the judgment dated 26.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, the order of learned JMIC, Mansa was upheld and the appeal has been in complaint under Sections 193, 196, 467, 468, 471, 420/511 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Brief background of the case is that Kaur and Gurnam Singh, moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Jit Singh and his wife 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1682-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.02.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab. This revision is filed against the judgment dated 16.11.2018 whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioners, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence learned JMIC, Mansa and the judgment dated Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby the order of learned JMIC, Mansa was upheld and the appeal has been 193, 196, 467, 468, 471, 420/511 Indian Penal Code, 1860. round of the case is that the applicants, Amarjit Kaur and Gurnam Singh, moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Jit Singh and his wife GURPREET 2026.02.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. 1682 Malkiat Kaur on allegations of perjury, fabrication of false e fraud upon the Court. 02.09.2000 titled by the Court of the then Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Mansa, Jit Singh had specifically pleaded that Nek real brother, one among six brothers, and had further stated that the said brother was unmarried, issueless, and missing for 40 averments were made in a subsequent civil suit for possession and in partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Budhlada. Power of Attorney No. 113 dated 14.06.1989 in favour of Babu Singh, pursuant to which registered sale deeds d favour of the applicants, who have since remained in possession as lawful owners. acknowledging Nek Singh as a distinct person and real brother, Jit Singh, in collusion with his wife, subsequently instituted a suit by falsely projecting Jit Singh as being identical to Nek Singh @ Ranjit Singh, and by denying the existence/validity of the General Power of Attorney. The applicants contend that this amounted to deliberate material facts, contradictory pleadings, impersonation, and fraud upon the Court with intent to defeat the applicants’ lawful title and grab the disputed land, leading to the present complaint. Upon trial, vide judgment and order (O&M) Malkiat Kaur on allegations of perjury, fabrication of false e fraud upon the Court. It is averred that in Civil Suit No. 35 dated 02.09.2000 titled Jit Singh vs. Amarjit Kaur & Ors. by the Court of the then Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Mansa, Jit Singh had specifically pleaded that Nek Singh @ Tek Singh @ Ranjit Singh was his real brother, one among six brothers, and had further stated that the said brother was unmarried, issueless, and missing for 40 averments were made in a subsequent civil suit for possession and in partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, The applicants submit that Nek Singh had executed a General Power of Attorney No. 113 dated 14.06.1989 in favour of Babu Singh, pursuant to which registered sale deeds dated 20.06.1989 were executed in favour of the applicants, who have since remained in possession as lawful It is alleged that despite earlier judicial admissions acknowledging Nek Singh as a distinct person and real brother, Jit Singh, on with his wife, subsequently instituted a suit by falsely projecting Jit Singh as being identical to Nek Singh @ Ranjit Singh, and by denying the existence/validity of the General Power of Attorney. The applicants contend that this amounted to deliberate material facts, contradictory pleadings, impersonation, and fraud upon the Court with intent to defeat the applicants’ lawful title and grab the disputed leading to the present complaint. Upon trial, vide judgment and order 2 Malkiat Kaur on allegations of perjury, fabrication of false evidence, and It is averred that in Civil Suit No. 35 dated Jit Singh vs. Amarjit Kaur & Ors., decided on 12.11.2003 by the Court of the then Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Mansa, Jit Singh had Singh @ Tek Singh @ Ranjit Singh was his real brother, one among six brothers, and had further stated that the said brother was unmarried, issueless, and missing for 40–45 years. Similar averments were made in a subsequent civil suit for possession and in partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Tehsildar, The applicants submit that Nek Singh had executed a General Power of Attorney No. 113 dated 14.06.1989 in favour of Babu Singh, ated 20.06.1989 were executed in favour of the applicants, who have since remained in possession as lawful It is alleged that despite earlier judicial admissions acknowledging Nek Singh as a distinct person and real brother, Jit Singh, on with his wife, subsequently instituted a suit by falsely projecting Jit Singh as being identical to Nek Singh @ Ranjit Singh, and by denying the existence/validity of the General Power of Attorney. The applicants contend that this amounted to deliberate concealment of material facts, contradictory pleadings, impersonation, and fraud upon the Court with intent to defeat the applicants’ lawful title and grab the disputed leading to the present complaint. Upon trial, vide judgment and order GURPREET 2026.02.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. 1682 dated 16.11.20 petitioner was Name of convict Sentence under Section Malkiat Kaur 120 193/120 196/120 467/120 468/120 471/120 420/511/120 3. sentence, petitioner Judge, Mansa 4. submitted that and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as the petitioner has already undergone 5. in Court today, which petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. 6. record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance. 7. (O&M) 1.2018, passed by the Judicial Magistrate was convicted and sentenced as under: Sentence under Section RI awarded Fine 120-B IPC 2 years Rs. 193/120-B IPC 2 years Rs. 196/120-B IPC 2 years Rs.500/ 467/120-B IPC 2 years Rs.500/ 468/120-B IPC 2 years Rs.500/ 471/120-B IPC 2 years Rs.500/ 420/511/120-B IPC 2 years Rs.500/ Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction an sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Mansa, who vide judgment dated 26.05.2025 At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction of the petitioner and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as the petitioner has already undergone total sentence of Per contra, learned State counsel in Court today, which is taken on record and on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the s been meticulously examined with their able assistance. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 3 , passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa, convicted and sentenced as under:- Fine In default of payment of Fine further RI for Rs.500/- 01 month Rs.500/- 01 month Rs.500/- 01 month Rs.500/- 01 month Rs.500/- 01 month Rs.500/- 01 month Rs.500/- 01 month Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of preferred an appeal before the ld. Additional Sessions 26.05.2025 dismissed the same. counsel for the petitioner has he conviction of the petitioner on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as the total sentence of 07 months and 23 days. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate taken on record and opposes the prayer of the on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the s been meticulously examined with their able assistance. Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, GURPREET 2026.02.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. 1682 the Supreme Court (Three a mere formality in criminal proceedings. Where a statute prescri minimum and maximum terms, the court must exercise the discretion conferred upon it judiciously not whimsically or arbitrarily. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, manner of commission, and the accused’s age are imperative in determining a court must operate within the principle of proportionality, ensuring the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor inappropriately lenient. 8. 1166, the Court reaf a deterrent effect that compels the offender to acknowledge the harm caused both to the victim and to society. The Court held that opportunities for reformation must be afforded, and sentencing discret exercised by weighing all attendant circumstances, including the nature and manner of the offence and the conduct of the accused, to strike a balance between legal efficacy and prospects of rehabilitation. 9. Appellate Court reveals no perversity; the decision is grounded in a sound appreciation of the evide the conviction on substantive grounds, limiting his plea solely to a modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone. 10. registered in the year 20 agony of trial since the last more than (O&M) the Supreme Court (Three-Judge Bench) underscored that sentencing is not a mere formality in criminal proceedings. Where a statute prescri minimum and maximum terms, the court must exercise the discretion conferred upon it judiciously not whimsically or arbitrarily. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, manner of commission, and the accused’s age are imperative in determining an appropriate sentence. The sentencing court must operate within the principle of proportionality, ensuring the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor inappropriately lenient. In Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2017 SC , the Court reaffirmed that sentencing serves a broader social purpose a deterrent effect that compels the offender to acknowledge the harm caused both to the victim and to society. The Court held that opportunities for reformation must be afforded, and sentencing discret exercised by weighing all attendant circumstances, including the nature and manner of the offence and the conduct of the accused, to strike a balance between legal efficacy and prospects of rehabilitation. A careful review of the convictio Appellate Court reveals no perversity; the decision is grounded in a sound appreciation of the evidence. Counsel for the petitioner the conviction on substantive grounds, limiting his plea solely to a modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone. Perusal of record indicates that complaint (supra) was registered in the year 2015 and the petitioners have been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than 1 4 Judge Bench) underscored that sentencing is not a mere formality in criminal proceedings. Where a statute prescribes both minimum and maximum terms, the court must exercise the discretion conferred upon it judiciously not whimsically or arbitrarily. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, manner of commission, and the accused’s age n appropriate sentence. The sentencing court must operate within the principle of proportionality, ensuring the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor inappropriately lenient. Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2017 SC firmed that sentencing serves a broader social purpose a deterrent effect that compels the offender to acknowledge the harm caused both to the victim and to society. The Court held that opportunities for reformation must be afforded, and sentencing discretion must be exercised by weighing all attendant circumstances, including the nature and manner of the offence and the conduct of the accused, to strike a balance between legal efficacy and prospects of rehabilitation. A careful review of the conviction rendered by the learned Appellate Court reveals no perversity; the decision is grounded in a sound nce. Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction on substantive grounds, limiting his plea solely to a modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone. Perusal of record indicates that complaint (supra) was ioners have been suffering the 11 years. As per the custody GURPREET 2026.02.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. 1682 certificate, petitioner has already undergone and 23 days. 11. the interest of justice, if the sen to the period already undergone by 12. revision is disposed of in the following terms: 13. disposed of. 16.02.2026 Gurpreet (O&M) petitioner has already undergone . Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in he interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated learned Additional upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period of sentence alrea undergone by him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand i) Whether speaking/reasoned? ii) Whether reportable? 5 petitioner has already undergone total sentence of 07 months Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in tence awarded to the petitioner is reduced Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision is disposed of in the following terms:- The judgment dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa is The order of sentence dated 16.11.2018 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already . Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET 2026.02.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.