Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33217 (PNJ)

NANU RAM v. STATE OF HRY.

CRR/1409/2005 · 2025-09-09

Manjari Nehru Kaul

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 201 NANU RAM STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1. judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class 13.08.1994 under Sections 1860, registered at Police Station and sentencing the petitioner, which judgment was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ka 2. follows:- Offence(s) under Section 467 IPC 468 IPC 471 IPC 420 IPC 2A. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1409 Date of decision: NANU RAM Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The instant revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal under Sections 467/468/471 and 420 of the registered at Police Station City Karnal, District Karnal and sentencing the petitioner, which judgment was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, on 29.07.2005 The petitioner was sentenced t Offence(s) under Section Period of sentence Fine imposed RI for 3 years Rs.1,000/- RI for 2 years Rs.1,000/- RI for 1 year Rs.500/- RI for 1 year Rs.500/- All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1409-2005 Date of decision: September 09, 2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 23.11.2002 passed by , Karnal, in case FIR No.386 dated 467/468/471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, City Karnal, District Karnal, convicting and sentencing the petitioner, which judgment was upheld by the learned on 29.07.2005. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as Period of sentence in default of payment of fine RI for 2 months RI for 2 months RI for 2 months RI for 1 month were ordered to be run concurrently. , 2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent The instant revision petition has been preferred against the 23.11.2002 passed by dated Indian Penal Code, , convicting and sentencing the petitioner, which judgment was upheld by the learned o undergo imprisonment as Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.10 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1409-2005 3. conceded that in view of the concurrent findi Trial Court and learned Appellate Court, conviction of the petitioner on m the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the 1994, and the petitioner incarceration for a period of that the petitioner has endured the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, is a peace-loving and law antecedents. On these premises, learned counsel pleads for a lenient view, contending that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to further incarceration. 4. reduction of sentence. W recorded against the petitioner, it has been submitted that the conviction calls for no interference. However, the learned State counsel is unable to that subsequent to the maintained good conduct and has not been involved in any other criminal activity. 5. relevant material on record. 2005 Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, fairly conceded that in view of the concurrent findi Trial Court and learned Appellate Court, he conviction of the petitioner on merits. His submission is confined solely to the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the and the petitioner, who is a 100-years old man incarceration for a period of 7 months and 12 days. that the petitioner has endured the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, loving and law-abiding citizen, and has no other criminal antecedents. On these premises, learned counsel pleads for a lenient view, contending that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to further incarceration. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the p reduction of sentence. While drawing attention to the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner, it has been submitted that the conviction calls for no interference. However, the learned State counsel is unable to that subsequent to the occurrence of the year maintained good conduct and has not been involved in any other criminal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, fairly conceded that in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned he does not intend to assail the submission is confined solely to the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the incident pertains to the year years old man, has already undergone 7 months and 12 days. It is further submitted that the petitioner has endured the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, abiding citizen, and has no other criminal antecedents. On these premises, learned counsel pleads for a lenient view, contending that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the unsel has opposed the prayer for hile drawing attention to the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner, it has been submitted that the conviction calls for no interference. However, the learned State counsel is unable to dispute of the year 1994, the petitioner has maintained good conduct and has not been involved in any other criminal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, fairly ngs recorded by the learned does not intend to assail the submission is confined solely to pertains to the year has already undergone It is further submitted that the petitioner has endured the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, abiding citizen, and has no other criminal antecedents. On these premises, learned counsel pleads for a lenient view, contending that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the rayer for hile drawing attention to the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner, it has been submitted that the conviction calls dispute the petitioner has maintained good conduct and has not been involved in any other criminal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.10 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1409-2005 6. enumerated hereinabove, particularly the cir pertains to the year learned State counsel, that the petitioner has not indulged in any other criminal act thereafter law-abiding life, it would not be appropriate to send him back to prison at this stage of life, especially when he has already borne the brunt of prolonged trial proceedings. 7. adequately met if substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 8. 9. imposed. 10. instant revision petition stands disposed of. September 09 Jaspreet Kaur 2005 In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts enumerated hereinabove, particularly the cir the year 1994, and taking note of the fact learned State counsel, that the petitioner has not indulged in any other criminal act thereafter, and has otherwise been leading a disciplined and abiding life, it would not be appropriate to send him back to prison at this stage of life, especially when he has already borne the brunt of prolonged trial proceedings. In the totality of circumstances, ends of justice would be adequately met if, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, his substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 7 months and 12 days. Ordered accordingly. However, there shall be no modification with regard to With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. September 09, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts enumerated hereinabove, particularly the circumstance that the incident and taking note of the fact – undisputed by the learned State counsel, that the petitioner has not indulged in any other and has otherwise been leading a disciplined and abiding life, it would not be appropriate to send him back to prison at this stage of life, especially when he has already borne the brunt of In the totality of circumstances, ends of justice would be , while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, his substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years is 7 months and 12 days. modification with regard to the fine With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, the (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts incident by the learned State counsel, that the petitioner has not indulged in any other and has otherwise been leading a disciplined and abiding life, it would not be appropriate to send him back to prison at this stage of life, especially when he has already borne the brunt of In the totality of circumstances, ends of justice would be , while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, his years is ne With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.10 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh