241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA KHARAK SINGH SATISH KUMAR AND CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR CRM-32385-2016 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the instant revision petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 92 condoned. MAIN CASE 1. This revision dated 04.04.2016 Sahib, vide which dated 15.11.2014 Malout in a complaint case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) have 2. The petit Offence 138 NI Act IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KHARAK SINGH V/S SATISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 2016 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the instant revision petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 92 days in filing the instant revision petition is This revision petition has been preferred against the dated 04.04.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar vide which, judgment of conviction and o dated 15.11.2014 passed by learned Sub Divisional a complaint case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) have The petitioner was sentenced as under: Sentence RI for 01 year with fine of Rs.2,000/ of fine to further undergo RI for 01 month. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-32385-2016 in/and CRR-3780-2016 (O & M) Date of decision: 27.03.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the instant revision petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. days in filing the instant revision petition is has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar and order on quantum of sentence Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, a complaint case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) have been upheld. sentenced as under: 01 year with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 01 month. MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-32385-2016 in/and CRR-3780-2016 3. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib his prayer to modification of the order sentence already underg had undergone a period of 07 months and 03 days as dated 29.11.2016 and his sentence was suspended vide order dated 21.12.2016 by this Court. As such, the petitioner has unde months of actual custody, out of total sentence of one year, learned trial Court, under Section 138 of NI Act. Further, no compensation was awarded by learned trial Court and only a fine of Rs.2,000/ which was deposited at the time of filing the appeal. 4. Per contra petitioner on the ground that judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence availab has also been upheld by the learned lower Appellat does not deserve any leniency. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. In Deo Narain Mandal v. 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 2016 in/and 2016 (O & M) Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment of conviction learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had undergone a period of 07 months and 03 days as 29.11.2016 and his sentence was suspended vide order dated 21.12.2016 by this Court. As such, the petitioner has unde months of actual custody, out of total sentence of one year, learned trial Court, under Section 138 of NI Act. Further, no compensation was awarded by learned trial Court and only a fine of Rs.2,000/ deposited at the time of filing the appeal. Per contra, learned State for respondent petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence availab has also been upheld by the learned lower Appellat not deserve any leniency. 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 e, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each 2 petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib on merits and restricts quantum of sentence to that of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had undergone a period of 07 months and 03 days as per his custody certificate 29.11.2016 and his sentence was suspended vide order dated 21.12.2016 by this Court. As such, the petitioner has undergone a period of about 08 months of actual custody, out of total sentence of one year, awarded by learned trial Court, under Section 138 of NI Act. Further, no compensation was awarded by learned trial Court and only a fine of Rs.2,000/- was awarded, deposited at the time of filing the appeal. State for respondent opposes the prayer of the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 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 e, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-32385-2016 in/and CRR-3780-2016 case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence an 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 ac Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise 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 ca 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 pa trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. 8. The present complaint is of the year been suffering the agony of protracted trial for last his conviction, the petitioner 2016 in/and 2016 (O & M) case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which 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 ac Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 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 ca 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 pa trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on r he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of The present complaint is of the year been suffering the agony of protracted trial for last conviction, the petitioner has grown into law 3 case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which, the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while d 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 , has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the 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 counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on r he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of The present complaint is of the year 2013 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of protracted trial for last more than 11 years. Since has grown into law-abiding citizen and desires to MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-32385-2016 in/and CRR-3780-2016 live a peaceful life. As per about 08 months, out of total sentence of one year, awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. 9. Accordingly, 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 10. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of and the judgment dated Sri Muktsar Sahib the order of sentence dated sentence of rigorous imprisonment for mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of se already undergone by 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, als disposed of. March 27, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2016 in/and 2016 (O & M) live a peaceful life. As per record, the petitioner had undergone a period of 08 months, out of total sentence of one year, awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. Accordingly, 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. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of and the judgment dated 04.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 15.11.2014 is modif sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of se already undergone by him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, als (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 4 the petitioner had undergone a period of 08 months, out of total sentence of one year, awarded by learned trial Accordingly, 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 Consequently, the present 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 one year and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the 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