225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA MANJIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 09.02.2011 Mohali, vide which dated 28.08.2009 Mohali, have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.156 dated 23.05.2001 registered under Sections 420/465/468/120 Station Mohali. Offence under Section(s) 465 IPC 468 IPC 471 IPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MANJIT SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 09.02.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, vide which, judgment of conviction and order 28.08.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali, have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.156 dated 23.05.2001 registered under Sections 420/465/468/120 The petitioner was sentenced by learned trial Court e under Section(s) Sentence RI for Rs.5,000/ fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. RI for Rs.5,000 fine, to undergo RI for Rs.5,000/ fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-466-2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 28.03.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, and order on quantum of sentence Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali, have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.156 dated 23.05.2001 registered under Sections 420/465/468/120-B of IPC at Police by learned trial Court as under :- Sentence two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. I for two years with a fine of 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. RI for two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-466-2011 420 IPC 120-B It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgmen and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period days, out of total sentence of petitioner is not involved in any other case. 3. Per contra petitioner as learned trial Court has passed a w 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 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 Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the 2011 (O & M) 2 RI for Rs.5,000/ fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. RI for Rs.5,000/ fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. It was ordered that all 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 certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period days, out of total sentence of two years, awarded by learned trial Court petitioner 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 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 imum 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 RI for two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. RI for two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. petitioner contends that he is not t of conviction dated 09.02.2011 on merits prayer 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 03 months and 05 awarded by learned trial Court. The State counsel opposes the prayer of the ell-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 imum 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 MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-466-2011 offence is committed, age of the 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 proportionali 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 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 dis 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 chance 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 record. counsel for the merits, rather he has restricted sentence. 8. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioner has been suffering the a Since his conviction, the desires to live a peaceful life. 2011 (O & M) 3 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 proportionali 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 of reformation must be granted and such dis 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 chance 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. for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua The FIR in the present case was lodged on been suffering the agony of trial conviction, the petitioner has grown into law to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has 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, has reiterated that the 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 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 trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned has not assailed the judgment of conviction on prayer only qua modification of quantum of The FIR in the present case was lodged on 23.05.2001 and the trial for the last about 24 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-466-2011 undergone actual period of 03 months and 05 days, out two years, awarded by learned trial Court 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sen period already undergone by 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated SAS Nagar, Mohali the order of sentence dated sentence of rigorous mechanism awarded to the already undergone by 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if disposed of. March 28, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2011 (O & M) 4 undergone actual period of 03 months and 05 days, out two years, awarded by learned trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner period already undergone by him. onsequently, the present petition judgment dated 09.02.2011 passed by the learned SAS Nagar, Mohali affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 28.08.2009 is modified to the extent that the rigorous imprisonment for two years awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable undergone actual period of 03 months and 05 days, out of total sentence of Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the tence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, is modified to the extent that the two years and fine along with default petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment