Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37608 (PNJ)

GULAB SINGH v. ST.OF HY.

CRR/876/2007 · 2025-09-23

Manjari Nehru Kaul

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 205 GULAB SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1. judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 18.07.1989 1860, registered at Police Station the petitioner, which Sessions Judge, 2. follows:- Offence(s) under Section 419 IPC 420 IPC r/w 511 IPC 2A. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-876-2007 Date of decision: GULAB SINGH Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Bahadur Singh, Advocate and Ms. Rajni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The instant revision petition has judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 18.07.1989 under Sections 419/420/467/471 registered at Police Station City Panipat the petitioner, which judgment was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat, on 27.02.2007. The petitioner was sentenced t Offence(s) under Section Period of sentence Fine imposed on each 419 IPC SI for 2 years 420 IPC r/w 511 IPC SI for 2 years Rs.500/ All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2007 Date of decision: September 23, 2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL and Mr. G.S. Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana. has been preferred against the judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 13.06.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, in case FIR No.639 419/420/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code, City Panipat, convicting and sentencing judgment was upheld by the learned Additional sentenced to undergo imprisonment as Fine imposed on each Period of sentence in default of payment of fine Rs.500/- SI for 1 month were ordered to be run concurrently. ...Petitioner ...Respondent been preferred against the passed by 639 Indian Penal Code, convicting and sentencing Additional o undergo imprisonment as Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.25 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-876-200 3. conceded that in view of the concurrent findin Trial Court and learned Appellate Court, conviction of the petitioner on m the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the to the year 1989 period of 11 months the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, abiding citizen, and has 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 dispute that subsequent maintained good conduct and activity. 5. relevant material on record. 6. enumerated hereinabove, particularly the circumstance that the to the year 19 2007 Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, fairly conceded that in view of the concurrent findin 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 1989, and the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a 11 months. It is further submitted that the petitioner 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 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 dispute that subsequent to the incident 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. In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts enumerated hereinabove, particularly the circumstance that the 1989, and taking note of the fact – -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 occurrence in question pertains already undergone incarceration for a It is further submitted that the petitioner has endured the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, is a peace-loving and law- 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. , learned State counsel 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 1989, the petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the w of this Court, having regard to the facts enumerated hereinabove, particularly the circumstance that the FIR pertains – undisputed by the learned Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, fairly gs recorded by the learned does not intend to assail the submission is confined solely to pertains already undergone incarceration for a endured - no other criminal antecedents. On these premises, learned counsel pleads for a lenient view, contending that no useful purpose ayer 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 has not been involved in any other criminal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the w of this Court, having regard to the facts pertains Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.25 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-876-200 State counsel, that the petitioner thereafter, and has it would not be appropriate to send especially when proceedings. 7. adequately met if, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of reduced to the period already undergone 8. 9. Rs.5,500/- to be deposited with within one month from the date of this order deposited be produced before the CJM concerned event of non- benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner, and shall be required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded him. 10. enhancement September 23 Jaspreet Kaur 2007 State counsel, that the petitioner has not indulged in any other criminal act , and has otherwise been leading a disciplined and law 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 woul adequately met if, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 11 Ordered accordingly. However the fine imposed is enhanced from Rs. to be deposited with the Haryana within one month from the date of this order deposited be produced before the CJM concerned -deposit of the fine within a period of one month from today, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner, and shall be required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence enhancement of fine, the instant revision petition September 23, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- not indulged in any other criminal act ing a disciplined and law-abiding life, back to prison at this stage of life, already borne the brunt of prolonged trial 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 two years is 11 months. imposed is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Haryana State Legal Services Authority and a copy of receipt of the fine deposited be produced before the CJM concerned. It is made clear that in the deposit of the fine within a period of one month from today, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner, and he shall be required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence and , the instant revision petition stands disposed of. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No not indulged in any other criminal act abiding life, back to prison at this stage of life, already borne the brunt of prolonged trial d be his years is to State Legal Services Authority and a copy of receipt of the fine . It is made clear that in the deposit of the fine within a period of one month from today, the he to and Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.25 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh