204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA NANAK SINGH AND STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 02.05.2011 which, judgment of conviction Magistrate Ist Class, No.182 dated 13.10.2007 Police Station 28.01.2010 has been modified. T Offence under Section(s) 452 IPC 323 IPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH NANAK SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Nishant Sehgal, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 02.05.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction dated 28.01.2010 Magistrate Ist Class, Muktsar, has been upheld 13.10.2007 registered under Sections Police Station Sadar, Muktsar and order on 28.01.2010 has been modified. The petitioners were Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for Rs.500/ of fine, to further undergo SI for three months. RI for Rs.300/ of fine, to f IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1151-2011 Date of decision: 12.05.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. has been preferred against the judgment learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide 28.01.2010 passed by learned Judicial has been upheld in case stemming from FIR registered under Sections 452/323/34 of IPC at on quantum of sentence dated s were sentenced as under : Sentence RI for nine months with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three months. RI for four months with a fine of Rs.300/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1151-2011 It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the certificates, petitioner and 23 days and petitioner and 08 days out of total sentence of Appellate Court and 3. Per contra petitioners as learned trial Court has passed a well on correct appreciation of evidence available on record upheld by the learned lower Appellat any leniency. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 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 for 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, manne offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used 2011 2 month. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 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 petitioner , petitioner-Nanak Singh has undergone actual period of days and petitioner-Kako has undergone actual period of 03 months out of total sentence of nine months Court and are not involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel as learned trial Court has passed a well on correct appreciation of evidence available on record upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, 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, manne offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 02.05.2011 on merits prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to petitioners. As per the custody has undergone actual period of 02 months Kako has undergone actual period of 03 months nine months, awarded by learned lower not involved in any other case. 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, they do not deserve have heard learned 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 mality 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 offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1151-2011 arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarde 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 opportuni of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by 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 ba 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 petitioners were minimum punishment has been prescribed. petitioners has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, restricted his prayer only qua 8. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioners have years. Since their citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. petitioner-Nanak Singh has undergone actual period of 02 months and 23 days 2011 3 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 opportuni of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by 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 record. s were convicted under Sections 452/323 minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on s have been suffering the agony of trial their conviction, the petitioners have and desire to live a peaceful life. As per the custody certificates, Nanak Singh has undergone actual period of 02 months and 23 days arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence d 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, 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 of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by 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 lance between the 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 available on record. It transpires that the 452/323 of IPC, for which no Moreover, learned counsel for the has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 13.10.2007 and the trial for the last more than 17 s have grown into law-abiding As per the custody certificates, Nanak Singh has undergone actual period of 02 months and 23 days MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1151-2011 and petitioner-Kako has undergone actual peri of total sentence of and are not involved in any other case. 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 452/323 of IPC, this Court is of the opini justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner already undergone by 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated Sahib affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated rigorous imprisonment for awarded to the undergone by them May 12, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2011 4 Kako has undergone actual period of 03 months and 08 days out of total sentence of nine months, awarded by learned are not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner already undergone by them. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 02.05.2011 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of 02.05.2011 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for nine months and fine awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period of sentence already them. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable od of 03 months and 08 days out , awarded by learned lower Appellate Court Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections on that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of is modified to the extent that the sentence of and fine along with default mechanism is reduced to the period of sentence already HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment