202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHAMAN LAL STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 09.02.2010 which, judgment of conviction Judicial Magistrate, Sections 177/181/182/193/199/200/211/500/501 of IPC of sentence was modified. T Offence under Section(s) 181 IPC 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by th certificate, the petitioner has undergone IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHAMAN LAL V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 09.02.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction 16.05.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, has been upheld, in Sections 177/181/182/193/199/200/211/500/501 of IPC was modified. The petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for one year. 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 a period of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-673-2010 Date of decision: 12.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR for Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide passed by learned Additional Chief held, in a complaint case filed under Sections 177/181/182/193/199/200/211/500/501 of IPC and order on quantum he petitioner was sentenced as under : Sentence RI for one year. petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.02.2010 on merits prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to e petitioner. As per his custody period of 02 months and 10 days, MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-673-2010 including remission lower Appellate 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 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 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 C 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 mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 6. Further, a two Judge Ben 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 to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities 2 including remission out of total sentence of one year, lower Appellate Court and 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 C 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 y 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 to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities one year, awarded by learned is 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, he does not deserve I 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 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 offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used y 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. ch 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 MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-673-2010 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. 7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioner was convicted under Section punishment has been prescribed. has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua 8. The the petitioner has years. Since his and desires to live a peaceful life. has undergone a period of total sentence of not involved in any other case. 9. Since there is no minimum punis 181 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it wo justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated 3 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 he 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. ner was convicted under Section 181 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, learned counsel for the has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. The complaint in the present case was lodged on petitioner has been suffering the agony of his 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 10 days total sentence of one year, awarded by learned lower Appellate not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it wo justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 09.02.2010 passed by the learned 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 he 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 A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. It transpires that the of IPC, for which no minimum earned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted quantum of sentence. in the present case was lodged on 21.11.2002 and trial for the last more than 22 grown into law-abiding citizen As per his custody certificate, the petitioner days including remission, out of lower Appellate Court and he is hment prescribed under Section of IPC, 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 petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-673-2010 Sangrur affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated rigorous imprisonment for period of sentence already undergone by May 12, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 4 affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of 09.02.2010 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for one year awarded to the period of sentence already undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of is modified to the extent that the sentence of awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the 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