201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA JASWANT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 30.11.2009 vide which, judgment of conviction 01.05.2009 passed by been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No. under Sections Station Jhansa and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for with a fine of Rs. read with Section 39 of Electricity Act 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period of days, out of total sentence of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JASWANT SINGH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 30.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Cl been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.105 under Sections 379 IPC read with Section 39 of and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for with a fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default mechanism under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of Electricity Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment of conviction prayer to modification of the order that of the sentence already undergone by the certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period of days, out of total sentence of one year, awarded IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-3232-2009 Date of decision: 05.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, and order on quantum of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra have 105 dated 03.10.2002 registered read with Section 39 of Electricity Act at Police and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for one year lt mechanism under Section 379 IPC petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2009 on merits to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period of 02 months and 14 awarded by learned trial Court and he MANISHA 2025.04.07 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-3232-2009 is not involved in any other case. 3. Per contra petitioner as learned trial Court has passed a well correct appreciation of evidence available on record upheld by the learned lower Appellat any leniency. 4. I have heard lear record with their able assistance. 5. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in crimin 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, 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 min the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 6. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise 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 2009 2 is not involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel as learned trial Court has passed a well correct appreciation of evidence available on record upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 ench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined 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, manner in which the ffence 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. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise 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 ion must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by State counsel opposes the prayer of the as learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been Court and as such, he does not deserve ned counsel for the parties and perused the Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a Three ench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of al 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, manner in which the ffence 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 d the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise 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 ion must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by MANISHA 2025.04.07 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-3232-2009 evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between th reformation of the accused. 7. 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 re petitioner was convicted under Electricity Act Moreover, learned counsel for the conviction on merits, rather he has restricted of quantum of sentence. 8. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioner has been suffering the agony of Since his conviction, the desires to live a peaceful life. undergone a period of year, awarded by learned trial Court and 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under IPC read with Section 39 of Electricity Act would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated Kurukshetra affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the 2009 3 evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. 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 re petitioner was convicted under Section 379 of IPC for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. earned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on been suffering the agony of trial for conviction, the petitioner has grown into law to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of 02 months and 14 days, out of total sentence of awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under IPC read with Section 39 of Electricity Act, this Court is of the opinion tha would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of e efficacy of law and the chances of 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. It transpires that the of IPC read with Section 39 of for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. has not assailed the judgment of his prayer only qua modification The FIR in the present case was lodged on 03.10.2002 and the for the last more than 22 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has days, out of total sentence of one he is not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under 379 of , this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the MANISHA 2025.04.07 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-3232-2009 order of sentence dated of rigorous imprisonment for default mechanism sentence already undergone by April 05, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2009 4 order of sentence dated 01.05.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable is modified to the extent that the sentence and a fine of Rs.1,000/- along with petitioner is reduced to the period of HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.07 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment