205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RAJINDER KUMAR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 06.12.2013 vide which, judgment of conviction 12.04.2013 passed by Singh Nagar have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No. 13.04.2006 registered under Sections Station Banga and the petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) 467 IPC 468 IPC 471 IPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAJINDER KUMAR V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. N.S. Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 06.12.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, judgment of conviction and order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No. registered under Sections 466/467/468/488/471 and the petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for 01 in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. RI for 01 year and a fine of Rs.1,000/ in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. RI for 01 year and a fine of Rs.1,000/ in default of payment of fine, to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-46-2014 Date of decision: 06.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, and order on quantum of sentence dated Judicial Magistrate, Shaheed Bhagat have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.106 dated 466/467/468/488/471 of IPC at Police and the petitioner was sentenced as under : Sentence RI for 01 year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. RI for 01 year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. RI for 01 year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to MANISHA 2025.05.13 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-46-2014 It was ordered that all 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 certificate, the petitioner has und days, out of total sentence of 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 2 undergo RI for 01 month. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 by learned trial Court 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 undergo RI for 01 month. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. petitioner contends that he is not the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2013 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 ergone actual period of 01 month and 16 awarded by learned trial Court and is 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 MANISHA 2025.05.13 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-46-2014 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 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 Sections minimum punishment has been prescribed. petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua 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 awarded by learned trial Court and 3 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 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 Sections 467/468/471 minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on been suffering the agony of trial for the conviction, the petitioner has grown into law to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of 01 month and 16 days, out of total sente awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. 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 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 467/468/471 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 13.04.2006 and the for the last more than 19 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has days, out of total sentence of one year, he is not involved in any other case. MANISHA 2025.05.13 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-46-2014 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 467/468/471 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 already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated SBS Nagar affirming the of sentence dated rigorous imprisonment for awarded to the undergone by him May 06, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 4 Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest e sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 06.12.2013 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 12.04.2013 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for one year and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest e sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order is modified to the extent that the sentence of along with default mechanism petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.13 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment