241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. BABLA STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2. HARINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRR Mr. (in Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This order of mine shall dispose of both the above petitions as both are arising out of the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from Punjab and others’. 2. These dated 12.04.2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S PUNJAB AND OTHERS HARINDER SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRR-2804-2013) Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRR-2952-2013) Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of both the above petitions as both are arising out of the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from ‘CRR-2804-2013 (O & M) Punjab and others’. These revision petitions have been preferred against the judgment 12.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.05.2025 CRR-2804-2013 (O & M) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS CRR-2952-2013 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sodhi, Advocate Advocate for the petitioner. This order of mine shall dispose of both the above-mentioned petitions as both are arising out of the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts (O & M)’ titled as ‘Babla vs. State of been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide MANISHA 2025.05.22 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2804-2013 & 01 connected case which, judgment of conviction 19.05.2012 passed been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No. under Section 420 petitioners were Name of the petitioner(s) Harinder Singh Sanjeev Sharma @ Babla 3. Learned counsel assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts their to that of the sentence already undergone by the certificates, the petitioner 07 months and 03 days and petitioner of 11 months and learned trial Court and 4. 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. 2013 (O & M) 2 & 01 connected case judgment of conviction and order on passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.18 under Section 420 of IPC at Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana s were sentenced as under : Name of the Offence under Section(s) 420 IPC Sanjeev Sharma @ 420 IPC Learned counsel(s) for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment of conviction their prayer to modification of the order to that of the sentence already undergone by the , the petitioner-Babla @ Sanjeev Sharma s and 03 days and petitioner-Harinder Singh has months and 05 days, out of total sentence of learned trial Court and both of them 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, on quantum of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, have 18 dated 26.02.2005 registered Division No.8, Ludhiana and the Offence under Sentence RI for three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 30 days. RI for three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 30 days. petitioners contends that they are not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2013 on merits prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners. As per the custody @ Sanjeev Sharma has undergone a period of Harinder Singh has undergone a period days, out of total sentence of three years, awarded by 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 MANISHA 2025.05.22 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2804-2013 & 01 connected case 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. 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 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 sent 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. 7. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP A 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 s 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. 8. 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 2013 (O & M) 3 & 01 connected case 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 nce 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 arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sent 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 s 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 ccused 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 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 nce 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 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. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IR 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 ccused 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 MANISHA 2025.05.22 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2804-2013 & 01 connected case correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioners were punishment has been prescribed. petitioners have have restricted their 9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioners have Since their conviction, the and desire to live a peaceful life. Babla @ Sanjeev Sharma has undergone a period of 07 months and 03 days and petitioner-Harinder Singh has undergone a period of 11 months and 05 days, out of total sentence of three years, awarded by learned trial Court and both of them are 10. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 420 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 11. Consequ dated 12.04.2013 affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 19.05.2012 imprisonment for to the petitioner them. 2013 (O & M) 4 & 01 connected case reciation of evidence available on record. s were convicted under Section 420 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, have not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather their prayer only qua modification of The FIR in the present case was lodged on e been suffering the agony of trial conviction, the petitioners have grown into law and desire to live a peaceful life. As per the custody certificates, the petitioner Babla @ Sanjeev Sharma has undergone a period of 07 months and 03 days Harinder Singh has undergone a period of 11 months and 05 days, out of total sentence of three years, awarded by learned trial Court and both of them are 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 would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner already undergone by them. Consequently, both petitions are disposed of 12.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence 19.05.2012 is modified to the extent that imprisonment for three years and fine along with default mechanism petitioners is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by reciation of evidence available on record. It transpires that the of IPC, for which no minimum Moreover, learned counsel(s) for the not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather they modification of quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 26.02.2005 and the trial for the last about 20 years. grown into law-abiding citizens As per the custody certificates, the petitioner- Babla @ Sanjeev Sharma has undergone a period of 07 months and 03 days Harinder Singh has undergone a period of 11 months and 05 days, out of total sentence of three years, awarded by learned trial Court and Since there is no minimum punishment 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 petitioners is reduced to the period disposed of and the judgment Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous along with default mechanism awarded is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by MANISHA 2025.05.22 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2804-2013 & 01 connected case 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. May 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2013 (O & M) 5 & 01 connected case Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.22 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment