IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 202 MOHINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1. judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate 11.11.1997 under Sections Indian Penal Code, 1860 convicting and sentencing the petitioner learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2. follows:- Name of the accused Offence(s) Mohinder Singh 120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1184-2008 Date of decision: MOHINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The instant revision petition has judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala under Sections 415, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Tapa, convicting and sentencing the petitioners, which judgment was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, on The petitioners were sentenced t Offence(s) under Section Period of sentence 120-B IPC RI for 3 years 420 IPC RI for 2½ years 467 IPC RI for 3 years 468 IPC RI for 2 years 471 IPC RI for 2 years IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2008 Date of decision: September 22, 2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab. has been preferred against the judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 15.10.2004 passed by Barnala, in case FIR No.135 dated 415, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the registered at Police Station Tapa, Barnala, , which judgment was upheld by the on 03.05.2008. sentenced to undergo imprisonment as Fine imposed on each Period of sentence in default of payment of fine Rs.2,000/- RI for 6 months Rs.1,500/- RI for 6 months Rs.2,000/- RI for 6 months Rs.1,000/- RI for 4 months Rs.1,000/- RI for 4 months ...Petitioners ...Respondent been preferred against the passed by FIR No.135 dated of the Barnala, , which judgment was upheld by the o undergo imprisonment as Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.22 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1184-2008 Hakam Singh 120 2A. 3. conceded that in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court, conviction of the petitioner the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the to the year 1997 for a period of have endured the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, and law-abiding citizens, and have premises, learned counsel pleads for a lenient view, contending that no useful purpose wo incarceration. 4. reduction of sentence. W recorded against the petitioner calls for no interference. However, the learned State counsel is unable to dispute that subsequent to the 2008 120-B IPC RI for 3 years 420 IPC RI for 2 years 467 IPC RI for 3 years 468 IPC RI for 2 years 471 IPC RI for 2 years All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court, he conviction of the petitioners on merits. His submission is confined solely to the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the 1997, and the petitioners have already undergone incarceration for a period of more than one year. It is further submitted that t endured the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, abiding citizens, and have 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 incarceration. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the p reduction of sentence. While drawing attention to the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioners, it has been calls for no interference. However, the learned State counsel is unable to dispute that subsequent to the incident of the year -2- Rs.2,000/- RI for 6 months Rs.1,500/- RI for 6 months Rs.2,000/- RI for 6 months Rs.1,000/- RI for 4 months Rs.1,000/- RI for 4 months were ordered to be run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 It is further submitted that the petitioners endured the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, are peace-loving no other criminal antecedents. On these premises, learned counsel pleads for a lenient view, contending that no uld be served by subjecting the petitioners to further , learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for hile drawing attention to the concurrent findings , it has been submitted that the conviction calls for no interference. However, the learned State counsel is unable to of the year 1997, the petitioners have has, at the very outset, fairly conceded that in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned does not intend to assail the submission is confined solely to pertains already undergone incarceration s loving no other criminal antecedents. On these premises, learned counsel pleads for a lenient view, contending that no to further rayer for hile drawing attention to the concurrent findings submitted that the conviction calls for no interference. However, the learned State counsel is unable to Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.22 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1184-2008 maintained good conduct and ha activity. 5. relevant material on record. 6. enumerated hereinabove, particularly the circumstance that the to the year 1997 State counsel, that the petitioner thereafter, and have life, it would not be appropriate to send life, especially when proceedings. 7. adequately met if, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner substantive sentence of rigor reduced to the period already undergone 8. 9. Rs.10,000/- Authority Disaster State Bank of India, Sector the date of this order. It is made clear that in the event of non enhanced fine within a period of one month from today, the benefit of 2008 maintained good conduct and have not been involved in any other criminal I have heard learned counsel fo relevant material on record. In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts enumerated hereinabove, particularly the circumstance that the 1997, and taking note of the fact State counsel, that the petitioners have not indulged in any other criminal act , and have otherwise been leading a disciplined and law life, it would not be appropriate to send them ife, especially when they have 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 substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 1 year and 15 days Ordered accordingly. However the fine imposed is enhanced from Rs. each to be deposited with the Authority Disaster Relief Fund, A/c No.44426937384 State Bank of India, Sector-68, SAS Nagar, Mohali the date of this order. It is made clear that in the event of non anced fine within a period of one month from today, the benefit of -3- not been involved in any other criminal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts enumerated hereinabove, particularly the circumstance that the FIR pertains and taking note of the fact – undisputed by the learned not indulged in any other criminal act otherwise been leading a disciplined and law-abiding them back to prison at this stage of 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 petitioners, their ous imprisonment for a period of three years is 1 year and 15 days. However the fine imposed is enhanced from Rs.7,500/- each to to be deposited with the “Punjab State Legal Services 44426937384, IFSC-SBIN0014656, 68, SAS Nagar, Mohali” within one month from the date of this order. It is made clear that in the event of non-deposit of the anced fine within a period of one month from today, the benefit of not been involved in any other criminal r the parties and perused the In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts pertains by the learned not indulged in any other criminal act abiding back to prison at this stage of already borne the brunt of prolonged trial In the totality of circumstances, ends of justice would be their years is to State Legal Services , within one month from deposit of the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.22 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1184-2008 reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to 10. enhancement of fine September 22 Jaspreet Kaur 2008 reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence enhancement of fine, the instant revision petition 22, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioners, and they shall be required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to them. 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 shall be and Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.22 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh